Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

WAYS AND MEANS

SESSIONAL RETURNS

Ordered,
That Returns be laid before the House for Session 1999–2000 of information and statistics relating to—

(1) Business of the House;
(2) Closure of Debate, Proposal of Question and Allocation of Time (including Programme Motions);
(3) Sittings of the House;
(4) Private Bills and Private Business;
(5) Public Bills;
(6) Delegated Legislation and Deregulation Orders;
(7) European Legislation;
(8) Grand Committees;
(9) Chairmen's Panel; and
(10) Select Committees.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means].

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Middle East Peace Process

Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on restarting the middle east peace process. [141960]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): At Nice, European Foreign Ministers met for two hours to review the distressing situation in the middle east. We expressed our concern at the violence in the occupied territories and at the impact of the tension on the wider region. I regret to inform the House that over the weekend there was more violence, as a result of which 10 Palestinians and three Israelis were killed.
There will be no winners so long as the violence continues. We urge both sides to fulfil their commitments at Sharm el-Sheikh to halt the violence. They can thereby create the environment in which negotiations can be resumed on the peace settlement that both Israel and Palestine desperately need.

Dr. Iddon: I welcome the declaration on the middle east made by the European Council at Nice. Among

other issues, the declaration flagged up the settlements. Israel has promised to face that question before, but clearly has not done so. Is my right hon. Friend surprised that that part of the declaration has caused so much reaction among Israeli diplomats and the Israeli press, to the extent that they are suggesting that it is a Palestinian incitement to violence?

Mr. Cook: It was a common theme of the discussion that the settlements were part of the problem. Anybody who has been to the middle east knows that settlements are one of the issues that have caused great tension and resentment in the Palestinian community. Since Oslo, during the many long years of engagement in the peace process, there has been a constant and substantial increase in the population of settlements—an increase that may be inconsistent with the final agreement. I regret that the statement was condemned in Israel as unbalanced because of that. I think that it is a carefully crafted and well-balanced statement that calls on both sides to fulfil their commitments to Sharm el-Sheikh and to cease violence. We will not get out of the spiral of violence if only one side acts; both sides must do so.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Accepting the careful words of the Foreign Secretary, is not it none the less a sad fact that the Palestinian leadership is encouraging the escalation of violence? That was demonstrated last Friday, the day of rage, during which 10 people were killed. I echo the right hon. Gentleman's view that the two sides should sit down. That message that must go to the Palestinian leadership, especially during the next two months. Will he applaud Prime Minister Barak's decision to bring forward the Israeli general election by two months? That will help to create the correct conditions for more talks.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman began by congratulating me on my careful words, but finished by inviting me to step into a deep pit. If he will forgive me, I shall not comment on the Israeli general election, which is a matter for the Israeli people.
On the hon. Gentleman's wider point, we have appealed to the leadership of both sides, including that of the Palestinians, for an end to the violence. We must understand, however, that the Palestinian leadership cannot turn off violence as if it were a military general commanding troops. The serious issue must be addressed of ensuring that the Palestinian people see the prospect of hope and progress. That is why we have called repeatedly for confidence-building measures.
I believe that relaxation of internal closures would enable the Palestinian leadership to command more support among the people. I read with concern the statement by an Israeli non-governmental organisation, Physicians for Human Rights, that medicine and food were now in short supply in large parts of the west bank because of those internal closures. Relaxing the closures, which play no part in security, could help to create the confidence within which violence can diminish.

Mr. David Winnick: Should not the Israelis, of all people, understand the anger and injustice felt by almost all Palestinians in the occupied territories? Should not those of us who have always taken the view that Israel has a right to exist—that has been my position


since 1948, when it came into existence—tell the Israelis bluntly that the line that they have pursued, especially since 1967, will never lead to peace? The Israelis should understand that. In my view, it is our responsibility to tell them so as clearly and as sharply as possible.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend speaks with particular authority because he has long been a friend of Israel. I hope that the Government and people of Israel are aware of the deep concerns about the present situation among all those who are their friends in the outside world. It is also true that nobody else stands to gain as much from a peace settlement as the Israeli people themselves. Indeed, whenever they are given the chance, they consistently vote for peace. I desperately want a few days free from any funerals, so that we can get back to pursuing the peace settlement.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is it not a matter of some dismay for those of us who wish the Israelis and Palestinians to reach a lasting and just settlement that ceasefires come and go with almost depressing frequency? In view of the antipathy of the Israelis to any monitoring force drawn from the United Nations, will the Foreign Secretary consider the possibility of such a force being drawn from the European Union or from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, so that the next time a ceasefire is declared it will have some chance of succeeding?

Mr. Cook: I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern about the failure of ceasefires to stay in being and I am particularly appalled and distressed at the level of last weekend's violence.
I believe that an observer force could play a valuable part in confidence building and in ensuring that agreements are honoured on the ground by both sides. I therefore regret that we have as yet been unable to reach agreement on the deployment of observers. They need not be static, they need not freeze present borders, they could be mobile and would not even need to be a military force that could intervene; they would be there to observe and to report. I am glad that the fact-finding mission is now starting its work this week in the middle east, and I hope it will be possible to build on that to provide a corps of observers.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for us to achieve a period that is free from violence and to create the prospect of returning to the negotiating table and the peace process, it is up to leaders on all sides to urge an end to violence? Is it not therefore time that the Palestinian leadership stopped its official media whipping up and orchestrating violence on the streets in the Palestinian Authority? The Palestinian leadership has control over that. Will my right hon. Friend stop the Palestinians from using the media in that way?

Mr. Cook: I fully endorse my hon. Friend's appeal to the Palestinian leadership not to say or do anything involving incitement. At the same time, we in this House are committed to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and we cannot prevent the Palestinian media from reporting views that are widely expressed in Palestine. I agree that there is a special responsibility on leadership figures, but both sides have to refrain from

violence if we are to get a ceasefire lasting more than a day or two. I particularly regret the fact that last weekend 10 Palestinians were killed out of a total of 13 deaths. Both sides must back off from violence if we are to have an end to violence.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If the Palestinian people are to be convinced that there is an alternative to violence in their efforts to meet their legitimate aspirations to peace and freedom, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the international community must display its willingness to put effective pressure on the Israeli Government to end their illegal occupation? In that context, what discussions did he have with colleagues at the Nice summit about the economic measures that might be taken against Israel if progress towards peace is not achieved in the near future?

Mr. Cook: I say to the hon. Gentleman in all candour—I appreciate the sincerity and good will behind his question—that our present objective is to try to encourage both sides to come back to the negotiating table and to ensure that they understand that Europe, the United States, the United Nations and Kofi Annan are willing to mediate and help. It does not currently assist in that objective to drive Israel increasingly into retreat and to make it feel under pressure from those who may be seen to be undermining its economy. Moreover, it is impossible to take economic measures against Israel without also damaging Palestine. One should remember that the Palestinians require Israel, more than any other country, to secure the opportunity for economic progress.

Iran

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: When he last raised the case of the Iranian Jews imprisoned for espionage with the Iranian ambassador. [141961]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We and our European Union partners have taken every appropriate opportunity to raise our concerns about the unsatisfactory nature of the case, which I last raised with the Iranian ambassador when I met him on 19 October. While noting the reductions in sentence of between two and six years on appeal, we hope that the Iranian judiciary will now show clemency.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply and for his hard work on this issue. Does he recall that those people have been in prison since March last year on what most, if not all, independent observers recognise were trumped-up charges, and that the only reason for their imprisonment is that they are Jewish? Does he also recall the series of assurances we had from representatives of the Iranian authorities, who said that there would be a fair and open trail? In fact, there was little more than a show trial. Will he continue to press directly and through our allies for the sentences to be commuted and for the early release of those innocent people?

Mr. Hain: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's interest in this case. That is right and proper, because it has caused widespread distress among his constituents and throughout Britain. This case does Iran no credit.


The sooner the judiciary is able to review the situation and move towards clemency, the better for everyone concerned. The persecution of Jews in Iran, of which this case is an example—although some Muslims were also prosecuted—is something that Iran must put behind it as it moves into the international family of nations.

Mr. John Bercow: What intelligence can the Minister offer the House about the treatment of those prisoners while they are incarcerated? Does he accept that in calling for justice and clemency, he is much strengthened by the knowledge that public opinion in Iran strongly favours reform of that country's political system?

Mr. Hain: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's point, because it highlights one of the central problems for progress on this matter. The Government have sought to engage constructively with the Government of President Khatami, who are reforming Iran with the mass support of the people. The Iranian Government are facing resistance not least among the judiciary, which is under the control of reactionary forces. These persecuted Jewish residents of Iran have found themselves stuck in the middle. That has prevented a satisfactory resolution to the problem, but we are still hopeful that the Iranian Government will understand international concern and act accordingly.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is extremely helpful to have a clear statement from the Minister, and we welcome his constant support. Does he accept that only pressure will make it clear to the Iranian authorities that if they want to be accepted internationally, this is not the way to go, and that the sooner these people are either tried honestly and openly or released the better it will be for the Iranian people?

Mr. Hain: I hope that the Iranian ambassador, with whom I have discussed this case recently, listens to my hon. Friend's point. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has consistently raised the issue at the highest level, as I have. It is in Iran's interest, and certainly in the Iranian Government's interest, for clemency to be shown in this case, which is an appalling stain on Iran's recent record at a time when much progress is being made that we should support.

RAXEN Programme

Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement about the discussions he has had with European Union Ministers about the RAXEN programme. [141962]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): RAXEN, the European racism and xenophobia information network, is an information-sharing network established by the European Union's monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia. European Union Ministers agreed the programme in 1997. The Government are committed to combating racism and promoting diversity in Britain and across Europe. We will continue to support RAXEN and the European monitoring centre in any way that we can.

Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that the whole House shares the Government's

desire to stamp out racism and xenophobia, but is not that organisation trying to stamp out the undesirable emotions that the European Union itself is creating? The creation of a European army and other moves that take us towards a European superstate, such as economic and monetary union, are likely to foster xenophobia and racism. Is not the real way to combat those undesirable emotions to allow each independent nation state to remain exactly that, independent?

Mr. Vaz: I know that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Freedom Association, but I thought that his views might have matured since he joined the House of Commons. RAXEN and the monitoring centre do excellent work. He may have prepared his supplementary question before he realised that this was not a question about the rapid reaction force. It is about an effective organisation that is doing very good work. It is right that we should celebrate the diversity of cultures in the European Union. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members do not support that work. I suggest that he uses one of his visits as a Member of Parliament to go to Austria and see those people, and then he will know what excellent work they do.

Nice Summit

Mrs. Anne Campbell: If he will make a statement on the recent EU summit in Nice. [141963]

Mr. Eric Illsley: If he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Council meeting in Nice. [141966]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement to the House yesterday on the Nice European Council.
The outcome secured Britain's strategic objectives. It opens the door to enlargement by agreeing the necessary reforms to the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament. It provides Britain with the first-ever increase in its vote. It removes the veto of other countries in some areas where Britain wants progress, such as tougher management of the Community budget, but it respects Britain's red lines by preserving unanimity on both tax and social security. It is a good deal for Britain. It is also a good deal for the candidate countries, which have widely welcomed agreement to the treaty and want to see it ratified.

Mrs. Campbell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent success in Nice. Does he recall who said this?
Considerable progress has been made … and qualified majority voting has enabled us to get some liberalising measures through against protectionist resistance by some of our partners.—[Official Report, 11 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 103.]


Does my right hon. Friend agree that those sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) are still appropriate, and does he wonder, as I do, why the shadow Secretary of State has done a complete U-turn?

Mr. Cook: I really think that that is a question for the Opposition, not the Government.

Mr. Illsley: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success at Nice.
Despite the Opposition's scaremongering about, for instance, increasing qualified majority voting, the reweighting of votes, the possible loss of vetoes and possible further integration, is it not a fact that the British Government negotiated successfully? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the outcome of the Nice summit paves the way for further enlargement? [Interruption.]

Mr. Cook: I am sorry that the Opposition find such a good outcome for Britain a subject for mirth.
Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and many others tried to claim that we had never been under any pressure on tax. I hope that this morning they heard the statement by President Chirac and Pierre Moscovici, the French European Minister, stressing how hard they had worked and how much they regretted the fact that we had not moved. We were only able to maintain those red lines because we remained firm over four days, and because of the brilliant case put by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The Prime Minister told us yesterday that he had—as indeed he has—increased the United Kingdom's voting share in the Council of Ministers; but will the Foreign Secretary now tell us exactly what the percentage increase is? According to figures that I have been given, it has risen from 11.49 per cent. to 12.4 per cent. Is that the greatest diplomatic triumph since the treaty of Berlin?

Mr. Cook: Yes—it is much better than anything we got under 18 years of Conservative government. As a matter of fact, our share steadily shrank: with every additional enlargement, the British share of the vote went down. We have now secured a significant increase, which will see us through the joining of the first six countries. During that time, we shall see no net reduction of any significance in the current British share.
We have protected Britain's strength. We have a stronger Britain, in what can now become a wider Europe. I would expect the Opposition—who keep saying that they believe in Britain, and believe in standing up for Britain—to welcome Britain's obtaining more clout in Europe.

Mr. Francis Maude: Will the Foreign Secretary tell us in how many areas it was agreed that the national veto should be given up? Was it 23, as the Commission has said, or 39, as the right hon. Gentleman's own officials have apparently said? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with us that the mainstream majority of the public here want to see a real process of

decentralisation in the European Union, not this relentless march towards political union? That would make enlargement easier to accomplish, not more difficult.

Mr. Cook: I am not quite sure to what extent the Opposition have been observing what happened at Nice. For four hours over Sunday night and Monday, we argued with one particular country. That is not evidence of a superstate; that is evidence of substantial—[Interruption.] I am answering the question. It is evidence of the way in which the European Union pays respect to the views of one country.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: How many?

Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman is quiet, I will answer the question. How can I answer it if I am constantly interrupted?
The treaty of Nice provides for qualified majority voting in 31 articles. Ten are articles from which Britain is already exempt because we are not part of Schengen. Three relate to the appointment and pensions of officials, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday. The remainder are substantial changes. I do not diminish them. They are substantial changes that we wanted because we wanted to get rid of the veto of other countries on tougher management of the Community budget; because we wanted to ensure that we have tight rules on structural funds, so that they cannot be mismanaged; and because we wanted to ensure that we can change the rules and procedure of the European Court of Justice, so that Britain can get its cases heard faster and more fairly. Those are gains for Britain.
The treaty is also a gain for Europe. Every hon. Member, including the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), has received a letter from the Federation of Poles in Great Britain urging—[Interruption.] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman has received it. The letter asks the House to be the first to ratify a treaty in the interests of central Europe. I would like to know what answer the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give the federation.

Mr. Maude: I will give the answer now—we would ratify tomorrow a treaty that was genuinely about enlargement. We would agree tomorrow the matters in the treaty that were genuinely about enlargement, reweighting of votes and the size of the Commission. We will not agree to ratify the relentless march towards full political union to which the Foreign Secretary has agreed.
On the defence initiative, will the Foreign Secretary answer the questions that were put to him yesterday? Does he understand that, at Nice, he and the Prime Minister signed up to establishing
the Military Committee of the European Union
and
the Military Staff of the European Union … ?
Does he finally understand that that is precisely what Defence Secretary Cohen and the other Americans are so concerned about? How can he ensure that NATO does not become a "relic of the past", in Secretary Cohen's own phrase, which he predicts will happen if the current arrangements are put into effect?

Mr. Cook: At Nice, we approved eight separate documents. They set out in great detail how, at every stage


of any European security initiative, it will be firmly anchored in joint decision-making with NATO. Moreover, any decision by us to take part will be a sovereign national decision.
The point was put to the right hon. Gentleman by Jonathan Dimbleby on Sunday. He said that it would be a sovereign decision by Britain and added:
That's not European control.
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
I regard us as being a European country.
The truth is that there is nothing but scare in what the Opposition are trying to peddle.
I return to the question that we put to the right hon. Gentleman. He is plainly saying that he will say no to the Polish federation; to the Polish Prime Minister, who described the decision at Nice as "exceptionally favourable"; to the Foreign Minister of Estonia, who said that the agreement was "historic"; and to the Foreign Minister of Lithuania, who said:
The doors of the EU institutions are open.
The right hon. Gentleman should reflect that, when the Opposition are the only force in the whole of Europe that is taking a view of negativity, it is just possible that they are wrong and the rest of Europe is right.

Mr. Maude: Will the Foreign Secretary answer the question that he has been asked? Does he believe that Secretary Cohen is fundamentally dishonest, to use his casual phrase? Secretary Cohen said that the arrangements should be put together, so that there was no separate operational planning, and that:
The European Union will erode NATO and US security ties with Europe if it insists on separate operational planning for its new rapid reaction force.
Does the Foreign Secretary understand that that is precisely what he and the Prime Minister signed up to on Friday in Nice? Does he realise just how dangerous that is—all for the sake of one man's vanity, the Prime Minister's moment in the sunlight as a leader in Europe? If the harvest of that vanity is permanent damage to the most successful security alliance in history, which has kept the peace in Europe for 50 years, he will never be forgiven.

Mr. Cook: There is no operational planning capacity in the proposals for European security. What the documents say is that we have a guaranteed permanent access to NATO's operational planning capacity. It is that which we will use in any exercise.

Mr. Maude: Read the document.

Mr. Cook: I have indeed read all the documents. That is why I know that there is no provision for an operational planning capacity. The day after the speech from which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, Secretary Cohen said that he was in complete agreement with the British position.
I return to my earlier point. The right hon. Gentleman has just suggested that this is all about one man's vanity. The fact is that 30 different countries took part in the capabilities conference two weeks ago. There were 30 different countries. The matter has been driven not by one man's vanity, but by those countries combined desire

and commitment to make Europe more secure and more safe. If Conservative Members really mean what their defence spokesman said yesterday and would drive a stake through our commitment to the force, 29 countries in Europe would regard Britain as having cheated them and let them down. That will not leave us with a strong alliance, on which our defence depends.

EU Enlargement

Ms Sally Keeble: What recent contacts he has had with his opposite numbers in Eastern Europe on the subject of EU enlargement. [141964]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): Last Thursday, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers from all the candidate countries for European Union membership at the meeting of the European conference in Nice. I have met all the applicants Ministers for Europe in the past 12 Months. As my hon. Friend will know and as the Foreign Secretary has just said, the Government are a champion of enlargement.

Ms Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What discussions is he having with other Ministers on protecting national interests and dealing with some of the problems of enlargement, particularly the financial costs of extending regional and agricultural aid programmes to new members?

Mr. Vaz: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that negotiations are going well. The first six countries that applied to join the European Union have completed negotiations and, on average, have closed 29 chapters of the 31 chapters of the acquis. The so-called Helsinki six have opened on average a total of between 9 and 13 chapters. The negotiations are going very well, and, as the Foreign Secretary has just said, they will be improved enormously by the spirit for enlargement demonstrated at the Nice summit. We shall continue to work with all the applicant countries to achieve that.
Indeed, just before Nice, I and two ministerial colleagues went to visit Bratislava. We are the first country to have had such bilateral visits. I want more such visits to take place, not only between Foreign Secretaries and Prime Ministers, but between Members of Parliament from Westminster and from the applicant countries.

Mr. Richard Spring: Given the crucial importance of enlargement, what arrangements does the hon. Gentleman envisage for reform of the common agricultural policy—without which the process cannot enduringly take place? When will that reform be made?

Mr. Vaz: As the House will know, the Government are highly committed to reform of the common agricultural policy. That point has been made consistently.

Mr. Maude: Not at Nice.

Mr. Vaz: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, because he signed the Maastricht treaty, it was not on the agenda at Nice because we do not need a treaty change to


reform the CAP. He will know that that was not one of the points that needed to be put on the agenda. We shall continue to push forward to ensure that there is CAP reform, and we shall do so with the same spirit of encouragement and enthusiasm that we have always shown.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend the Minister, when he next meets the ambassadors of the Czech, Slovak and Polish Governments, say that if they read the comments of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) in Hansard, they may be reassured that the spirit of Neville Chamberlain—who spoke of a far-away country of which we know little—is alive. In contrast, the Government recognise our moral obligation to allow expansion of the European Union to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. That obligation was won by brave pilots who fought above this place in 1940, and whom Winston Churchill referred to as "the few". Therefore, although enlargement is an economic, commercial and political issue, above all else it is a moral issue, and it needs to be addressed.

Mr. Vaz: I am sure that the whole House will have been moved by my hon. Friend's Churchillian tones. He is absolutely right—not only will I remind the ambassadors for those three applicant countries, but I will remind the ambassadors for all applicant countries. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his frequent visits to the applicant countries. This kind of bilateral relationship is extremely important because the applicant countries know, as the Foreign Secretary has just said, who is the friend of enlargement. They also know that the Conservative party would block enlargement.

EU Presidency

Mr. John Butterfill: When he next plans to meet the French President to discuss the work of the EU presidency; and if he will make a statement. [141965]

Mr. James Gray: When he next plans to meet the President of France to discuss the work of the EU presidency on enlargement; and if he will make a statement. [141967]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): We agreed at Nice, under President Chirac's chairmanship, on arrangements that will open the door to the enlargement of the European Union. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary next expect to meet President Chirac during the UK-French summit planned for 9 February next year. France will cease to hold the EU presidency in 19 days, when it will be passed to Sweden.

Mr. Butterfill: When the Foreign Secretary meets President Chirac, will he discuss with him the relationship between the European declaration on human rights and the European convention on human rights? At present, legislation passing through the House has to comply with the European convention on human rights. It is suggested that the European Commission believes that it can direct this House to amend legislation to comply with the

fundamental declaration. If that is so, what will happen if the two are in conflict? Which will prevail—the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights?

Mr. Vaz: I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman legal advice on these matters. As a former vice-chairman of the Back-Bench committee on foreign affairs, he is very knowledgeable about European issues. He will know that Commission proposals are always welcome.

Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend was chairman.

Mr. Vaz: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—he was chairman of the Back-Bench committee, which means that he should be even more knowledgeable on these issues and not require advice from me.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Commission is entitled to put its views forward. Indeed, it has a website, especially for that purpose, exclusively available to the whole world. Obviously, we will look carefully at what it says, but the Government's position on these matters is very clear, and any legal challenges will have to be dealt with in the normal way.

Mr. Gray: The entire tone of the post-Nice statements, including during Question Time today, has been one of swaggering boastfulness about how successful it was. However, two big things are missing from what the Government have been saying about Nice. The first is any kind of discussion of the reform of the common agricultural policy, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). Perhaps because of that, something else that is very important is missing from Nice—any setting of, or promise to set, a firm date for enlargement. When will enlargement of the European Union take place?

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman will know the statements that we have already made on the subject. Nice cleared the way for enlargement. I am not surprised that Conservative Members are depressed and sad about Nice, because they know what a success it was. That was demonstrated by the way in which, once and for all, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with the Leader of the Opposition on this subject yesterday.
Nice was a negotiating triumph because of the negotiating skills of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who were up until 4.30 yesterday morning. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) may laugh—the only time that he is up at 4.30 in the morning is when he comes swaggering out of the Carlton club. The success was not only for Britain but for the rest of Europe—the countries involved in enlargement and those of the European Union. The only political party in Europe not to get anything out of Nice was the Conservative party, so I have taken the trouble to get Conservative Members something from Nice—a packet of Nice biscuits.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Will the Minister for Europe confirm that it is now possible for a rational party to oppose the treaty of Nice and that it is possible for it


to support enlargement, but that it is no longer possible for a rational party, or any rational individual, to try to support both at once?

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course there is no rational argument from the Conservative party on such matters. A party that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, is prepared to hold a referendum on the pension rights of the Court of Auditors, but not on the Maastricht treaty, which was signed by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), shows that it has no policy whatever on Europe.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Is not the most significant development in the European Union, underlined at Nice, that we are increasingly moving from a Europe led by the Franco-German axis to a multi-faceted Europe, where Britain increasingly plays the leading role? Is not that light years away from the notion of a European superstate, about which the Conservative party consistently and misleadingly tries to frighten people in this country?

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the work that he does in the European movement. He is right because this country wants to see a Europe of nation states. At Nice, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary established that principle more clearly than ever before. No motor or axis runs Europe; it is a continent and the EU is an organisation of first-class nation states, all of which are equally treated. That is why we are delighted that the provisions on enhanced co-operation agreed at Nice will not create a two-speed Europe.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: When the Minister is swapping stories with President Chirac about his triumphs at Nice, will he take the opportunity to ask for clearer and more timely information about exactly what he and the Prime Minister have signed up to at Nice, so that he has a clear idea of the areas where he has surrendered our vetoes? Yesterday, the Prime Minister referred to qualified majority voting on the pensions of court auditors—which is reported at column 355 of Hansard—and the Minister has just referred to the pensions of the Court of Auditors. Will the Minister apologise to the House and confirm that, in fact, no provision on that issue was agreed to at Nice? That is not surprising, as the institutional provisions on the pensions of the Court of Auditors were introduced under article 247 of the Maastricht treaty and are already decided by QMV. Of course, the Prime Minister and the Minister may have been tired and failed to understand the detail, but is not it about time that they made accurate statements when they are signing away this country's powers?

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Lady is getting too excited—she should have one of these biscuits. I refer her to article 247 of the treaty, and if she has problems understanding what we have done at Nice, she should go to the Foreign Office website. We have just set up an interactive line. She can

communicate with me and ask any question that she wants. She cannot appreciate, and will not accept, the fact that a British Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have this shouting across the Chamber.

Mr. Vaz: I do not mind, Mr. Speaker, because the shouting betrays the vacuum that currently exists in Conservative party policy. Conservative Members cannot stomach the fact that a British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary can go to a European Council, such as Nice, and come back with every single one of the British Government's objectives maintained. We will take no lectures on QMV from the hon. Lady, who is sitting next to St. Francis of Maastricht—the person who negotiated 30 different changes to QMV.

Somaliland

Mr. Alun Michael: What steps he is taking to support and encourage progress on stability and reconstruction in Somaliland. [141968]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We welcome the establishment of a transitional National Assembly in Mogadishu, but have made it clear that it must not undermine the peace and stability achieved by the regions of Somaliland and Puntland.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the personal interest that my hon. Friend the Minister takes in Somaliland, in particular the north of Somalia, from where so many British Somalis come. They have made a considerable contribution to organisations such as the British Army and the Merchant Navy over the years. Does he agree that it is remarkable, given the unsettled state of most of Somalia, that Somaliland has become well ordered, that it has governance if not a Government, and that it has democratic institutions and is working towards an election? Does he also agree that the British Government, and we as parliamentarians, should do everything possible to encourage the continuation of that stability and the development of those institutions and of law and order in Somaliland?

Mr. Hain: I very much welcome the points made by my right hon. Friend, and acknowledge his long-standing expertise and interest in the future of the Somali people, some of whom reside in his constituency. We are very proud to have them in Wales.
Somaliland's stability, which is remarkable in a country that has been torn apart by some of the most vicious skirmishing and warlordery, is a model for the rest of the country and one that we should support and encourage. I shall work with my right hon. Friend to achieve that.

Mr. Roger Gale: While the Minister is considering the promotion of democracy in Somaliland, will he widen his view to take in the whole of the African continent? Will he tell the House, in the light of


the present circumstances in Ghana, what additional assistance the Government will give to ensure that the elections there—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is not about Ghana. Let us move on to the next question.

Overseas Staff

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: When he will next review the level of salaries available to his Department's staff serving overseas; and if he will make a statement. [141969]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Salaries of all United Kingdom-based Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff, whether serving at home or overseas, are reviewed annually. There is a common settlement date for all staff of 1 April.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister will know that Members of Parliament, when travelling overseas, receive very good support from staff of all grades at missions and embassies throughout the world. Some lower administrative grades have to be filled by United Kingdom nationals because they involve sensitive work such as translating messages, telexes and telegrams. However, is the Minister aware that those grades attract salaries that leave the postholder entitled to the working families tax credit and other social security benefits? Surely, if those UK nationals are being asked to do such sensitive work in such important positions overseas, they should not have to rely on the social security system for top-ups to their wages.

Mr. Hain: We are well aware of the problem of low-paid staff in the Foreign Office—a problem that we inherited from the Tory Government. [Interruption.] I will come to the hon. Gentleman's specific point. Our awareness of the problem explains why the Foreign Secretary authorised a pay settlement in agreement with the Treasury that was particularly beneficial to the lowest-paid staff, who received up to 9 to 10 per cent. compared with an average of 4.5 per cent. this year. I think that about six members of the Foreign Office staff would be entitled to receive the working families tax credit, and receive ex gratia payments by agreement with the Inland Revenue because they cannot attract the credit under the rules. We do not want that situation to be perpetuated and we are keeping it under review. I join the hon. Gentleman in acknowledging and paying tribute to the service that our overseas staff, both locally engaged staff and British nationals, provide.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Could we not link the pay of overseas staff to their efforts in promoting British products overseas? Does the Minister agree that it is wrong, for example, that the consul-general in Sydney has equipped his offices there with crockery not from Australia, not from Taiwan, not even from Japan, but all the way from Italy? This matter could be linked with the next question. Does the Minister agree that the Italian embassy in Canberra is probably equipped with Italian

crockery, rather than British crockery? Should not the crockery and glasses in British embassies overseas be home-grown products?

Mr. Hain: I am tempted to think that that question comes from an old crock, but that would be very unfair.
Perhaps the explanation of the hon. Gentleman's observation is that Foreign Office staff travel round the world and bring with them their own crockery, which they have collected on previous postings. I do not know whether that applies in this case. The hon. Gentleman should raise important, serious issues rather than matters such as this.

Italy

Mr. Roger Casale: If he will make a statement about the recent state visit to Italy. [141970]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The Queen, accompanied by Prince Philip, paid a state visit in October to Italy, during which Her Majesty and Prince Philip also visited Pope John Paul II at the Vatican. The visit was a recognition of our extremely close relationship with the Government and people of Italy. The Queen received an enthusiastic welcome, and the Italian press gave the visit extensive and wholly positive coverage.

Mr. Casale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain and Italy are working together successfully on a growing number of issues to shape the European and international agenda, not least on defence issues, such as the formulation of a headline goal for European defence capabilities, but also on immigration and asylum issues as well as taking a lead on the cancellation of poor-country debt? Will he join me in thanking my colleagues in the all-party parliamentary group, and the head of our secretariat, Michael Nathanson, for helping to cement bilateral parliamentary links, which further advance the new impetus that he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have given to bilateral relations at every level?

Mr. Cook: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that parliamentary links are an important part of bringing our countries together, and I congratulate him on his work as the chairman of the British-Italian parliamentary group. We have a close relationship with Italy on defence co-operation. Indeed, while on the state visit, the Duke of Edinburgh visited Agusta Westland, which is the second-largest producer of helicopters in the world. In addition, a Tornado that was part of the fly-past for the Queen was jointly piloted by an Italian and British crew. We also work together very closely in Kosovo, where there is an Italian commander of the Kosovo force.
Italy played an important part in, and made a major contribution to, the capabilities conference, to which my hon. Friend referred. If the Italian Government were ever faced with a Conservative Government who carried through their commitment to renege on Britain's commitments made at that conference, they would not only be astounded by that betrayal, but would ask why they should stand by their commitments to Britain if we do not stand by our commitments to our allies.

Kashmir

Mr. Steve McCabe: What assessment he has made of the Indian Government's ceasefire in Kashmir. [141974]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): While visiting India, I welcomed the Indian Government's ceasefire in Kashmir during Ramadan and called on militants and those supporting them to respond positively. I have also welcomed Pakistan's subsequent announcement that its forces at the line of control will observe maximum restraint. We hope that those recent developments will create a climate that encourages dialogue between the Indian and Pakistani Governments.

Mr. McCabe: I welcome my hon. Friend's positive and helpful comments about the situation in Kashmir. Can he say more about the proposed investigation by the Indian authorities into the massacre at Chattisinghpura of 36 male villagers who were executed on the eve of President Clinton's visit on 20 March this year? He will be aware that the limited inquiry by Mr. Justice Pandian revealed that the original suggestion that the atrocity was the responsibility of Kashmiri militants is now subject to considerable doubt. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the true facts are known and that those responsible are brought to justice if we are to continue to reduce tension in the region?

Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that that appalling massacre of 36 Sikhs in March has not done Kashmiris or, indeed, India any credit. That is why I very much welcome the decision of the Indian Government to conduct a special inquiry into the massacre and to publish two reports. That is a good sign of transparency and will act as a check against human rights abuses, which are happening almost every day in Kashmir.
It is important that the present opportunity offered by the statements of restraint that have been made by both sides is grasped. We need to move towards a proper dialogue and a resumption of the Lahore process, which was started so courageously last year by Prime Minister Vajpayee of India, so that we can get down to proper negotiations between the two countries and Kashmiri representatives to find a new and stable future for that troubled region.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I note the Minister's welcome for Pakistan's announcement of maximum military restraint on the conflict line, but does that announcement extend to its ceasing to be a state sponsor of terrorism in Kashmir?

Mr. Hain: No. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point because there is still far too much evidence—certainly over the past year to 18 months since the Cargil incident, which was inspired by Pakistan—that cross-border terrorism is actively encouraged and, indeed, at times sponsored by agencies and elements closely aligned with the Pakistani authorities. It is very important that that stops. Then, we shall have a climate in which serious negotiations and dialogue can create a more hopeful situation.

Ilois People

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will conduct an environmental and ecological assessment in those areas of the Chagos archipelago and Diego Garcia which have been uninhabited for 30 years, before considering facilitating the return of Ilois people to the land of their ancestral graves. [141975]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that we have already completed the first phase of a study into the possibility of settlement on the outer islands of the Chagos archipelago. The study identified the significant difficulties in establishing a resident community after three decades in which the islands have been uninhabited. We are now preparing the second and third phases of the feasibility study. They will include an assessment of how best we protect the rich ecology on islands that have long been left undisturbed.

Mr. Dalyell: In light of the document of 13 November 1970, which was recently released under the 30-year rule and which I have given my right hon. Friend, do not the Ilois and, indeed, my right hon. Friend and I, who asked questions, and the House of Commons as a whole, have a right to feel aggrieved and deceived at the cynical attitude of the Foreign Office of those days? In the light of the documents revealed in the Public Record Office, do not we owe it to the Ilois to make it up to them?

Mr. Cook: I would have to agree wholly with my hon. Friend's comments on the document, which I have read. The only accurate sentence that I can find in it is the one that says:
Mr Dalyell is not, however, giving up.
That was 30 years ago. In the recent court case, we were open in disclosing hundreds of documents from that period. I am grateful to Lord Justice Laws for commending the openness of the Foreign Office of today, perhaps compared with that of 30 years ago.
We have accepted the judgment; we are not appealing against it. We are now looking hard at whether it is feasible to restore a settlement on the outer islands of the archipelago. That is the best way in which we can take the matter forward and do the justice for which my hon. Friend asks.

EU Co-operation

Mr. John Wilkinson: What recent discussions he has held with his French, German and Italian counterparts about reinforced co-operation between member states of the EU. [141977]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): Several.

Mr. Wilkinson: In his statement yesterday, the Prime Minister took pride in the fact that there are issues on which some EU member states can move ahead faster than others. At the same time, however, that process will be subject to the national veto. How are those positions


compatible, particularly since any grouping of member states comprising more than 38 per cent. of the population of the EU can, in effect, go ahead and do what it wants?

Mr. Vaz: Not on defence.

Cyprus

Mr. Andrew Love: What discussions he has had with his counterpart in Cyprus regarding inter-community relations; and if he will make a statement. [141978]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): During his most recent meeting with the Cyprus Foreign Minister on 3 October, the Foreign Secretary welcomed the progress made so far in the on-going United Nations-Cyprus proximity talks. The discussions also covered the necessity for both sides to remain fully engaged in the UN proximity talks, aimed at securing a just and sustainable settlement in Cyprus, which will benefit both its communities. The United Kingdom remains strongly supportive of the UN process and is working hard to ensure that all involved

continue to co-operate fully with the UN Secretary-General's efforts to achieve a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus.

Mr. Love: My hon. Friend will be aware that Mr. Denktash, the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, has indicated that he will not take part in further proximity talks. What efforts are the Government making to ensure the continuation of dialogue between the two communities in Cyprus, and what pressures are they bringing to bear to ensure meaningful dialogue leading to a resolution of the conflict on the island?

Mr. Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work that he has done on this issue and on the number of times that he has raised it in the House. It is vital that dialogue continues between the communities, and we have every confidence in the abilities of our special representative, Sir David Hannay. My hon. Friend will know from his meetings with Sir David and others involved in this sensitive process that we want all groups to participate. As the Prime Minister said on 23 December 1998, we want to see a just and lasting settlement for Cyprus.

Mr. John Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: After the statement, sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — Communications White Paper

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I should like to make a statement on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and myself on the communications White Paper "A New Future for Communications", which was published today and produced jointly by our Departments. Copies have been placed in the Library, and the White Paper is also available on the world wide web.
We are living at a time of revolution in the ways in which we communicate. The worlds of telephony, broadcasting, mobile communications and the internet are changing and converging with astonishing speed. Meanwhile, our current regulatory framework was designed for a different age. We need to update the framework of regulation, and put in place a system that recognises the current fast-changing picture and can cope with the inevitability of change in years to come. The White Paper prepares us for that future, and will set up modern regulation for a modern world.
We will be creating a new regulator—an Office of Communications, or Ofcom. The new regulator will cover all communications—telecoms, television and radio. It will help to give the United Kingdom a world lead by creating a new framework for those fast-moving industries. It will simplify and rationalise the regulatory system. It will provide a broadly lighter-touch approach, giving the industry the opportunity to act with responsible freedom. However, it will robustly uphold important standards of quality and protection for citizens.
For citizens and consumers, it is essential that we provide some certainty in what, for many, will be a world of bewildering change. We therefore aim to protect the high quality of broadcasting which we all tend to take for granted. So we are strengthening our commitment to public service broadcasting, to investment in the distinctive voices and needs of the regions, and to the importance of rules such as the watershed, to make sure that parents and citizens can protect children and vulnerable people from unsuitable broadcast material.
The challenge is both to free our industries from outdated rules, helping to promote competition in these markets, and to balance that with a framework which puts the needs of the citizen at its heart. If we are to meet this challenge, we need to think beyond the traditional compartments of broadcasting and telecommunications, of content and carriage.
That is why Ofcom will regulate the broadcasters—both radio and television—and the telecommunications sector; both content and the communications networks that carry services. It will jointly regulate competition policy with the Office of Fair Trading. It will also manage spectrum, thus covering the range of responsibilities at present exercised by the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority, Oftel, the Broadcasting Standards Commission and the Radiocommunications Agency.
The White Paper sets out a number of specific proposals, which are encapsulated at the end of the document, and also in a summary leaflet which we are publishing simultaneously. In this brief statement I can do no more than select some of those which I think will be of most concern to the House.
In developing the policies for the White Paper, my right hon. Friend and I set three main objectives: first, to ensure universal access to a choice of diverse services of the highest quality; secondly, to make the United Kingdom home to the most dynamic and competitive communications and media market in the world; and thirdly, to ensure that the interests of citizens and consumers are safeguarded.
Everyone should continue to have easy access to public service television and radio channels, as now, free at the point of delivery. The White Paper therefore sets out our proposals to ensure that television channels currently available free to air are carried on all platforms—satellite and cable, as well as through the television aerial. We intend both a "must carry" obligation on UK-based network providers, and a "must provide" obligation on the public service broadcasters.
Other communications services should be available to all at an affordable price, and we shall build on the universal telephony service obligations and Oftel's work to secure competition, so that people can increasingly benefit from new services, including the internet and higher bandwidth services. The Prime Minister has already made clear our commitment that everyone who wants it should have access to the internet by 2005. We are committed to ensuring that there is no digital divide, and that everyone should benefit from the information opportunities that are opening up.
In a world of increasing choice of channels and other sources of information and entertainment which digital technologies are bringing us, our fundamental belief is that public service broadcasting will become more, not less, important to society. It will be important especially as a forum for informed public democratic debate, to ensure that a plurality of views and perspectives is available; to ensure that high-quality educational material is available to all without extra charge; and to help to drive the transfer from analogue to digital.
We propose a new three-tier approach to the regulation of broadcasting, to provide a more level playing field between different broadcasters depending on the extent of their public service remit.
In the first tier, all broadcasters will be subject to basic rules on minimum content standards, impartiality in news, provisions on the protection of minors and access for people with disabilities. We will require Ofcom to give due weight to the need for improvements in such access for people with disabilities. We also intend that Ofcom should act as a final backstop one-stop shop for complaints for all broadcasters.
The second and third tiers will apply to public service broadcasters. In the second, regulated by Ofcom, those obligations that are readily measurable will be included: independent and original programme production quotas; requirements for regional productions and programming; and the availability of news and current affairs in peak time. We shall amend the BBC's agreement to include such a formal requirement for the first time.
In the third tier—where the general public service provision of high-quality varied schedules will rest—we propose to rely primarily on transparent self-regulation, but with backstop powers in place in the event of failure. Each broadcaster within this tier will be required to make a statement of programme policy updated each year, and to report on subsequent success. Each broadcaster will of


course have a distinctive remit, and the backstop power will rest with Ofcom in the case of the commercial broadcasters, and with the Secretary of State and Parliament in relation to the BBC.
We place particular emphasis on the regional dimension of public service broadcasting. There is a further aspect to that, of which hon. Members are aware and which they have raised with me on a number of occasions, concerning anomalies in regional coverage whereby, for technical reasons, some parts of the community do not receive the relevant regional programmes. We therefore propose to work with broadcasters and with local communities and their Members of Parliament to find new ways of resolving such difficulties with the advent of digital technology.
An important part of the public service mix is, of course, Channel 4 and we have rejected suggestions that it should be privatised. Channel 4 is a highly distinctive and successful service, much valued by viewers. The present structure of a statutory corporation works well. We will therefore maintain Channel 4 as a public sector broadcaster and ensure that it continues to be distinctive and innovative, providing both complementarity and competition to the BBC and ITV.
In the commercial sector, our view is that increased competition allows us to depend more on Competition Act 1998 powers rather than those specific to the sector, in order to secure diversity of ownership and competition in the relevant markets, such as advertising. We propose to replace the rule preventing anyone from holding two or more licences which attract 15 per cent. or more of the total TV audience share, and we propose to revoke the rule prohibiting single ownership of the two London ITV licences. We will consider changes to the points system for regulating radio ownership. We will also seek to boost the role of local community broadcasting in the digital environment, exploring the suggestion of an access fund for community radio, under the aegis of Ofcom.
We believe that sector-specific rules to promote competition will still be needed in the communications field, but we will make sure that the stronger sectoral rules will be applicable only to companies having significant market power, with lighter-touch regulation for most companies.
Ofcom's powers must enable it to address new competition challenges as these emerge from advancing technology and changing business models. For example, the increasing need to rely on electronic programme guides leads to a new risk that they might be used to limit competition and consumer choice. Ofcom's powers to promote competition and protect consumers will therefore apply to access to EPGs and similar new systems. And we shall take specific powers to ensure that public service channels to which access is essential for full social inclusion can benefit from "due prominence" on all relevant EPGs. Services which we require to be universally available must also be readily accessible.
Communications depend either on wires or on the use of the electromagnetic spectrum. The spectrum is an essential resource which must be managed in the public interest and in innovative ways that meet the needs of developing technologies. Because of the central importance of spectrum management to the development

and success of the UK's communications industries, we shall bring within Ofcom the responsibility for spectrum management.
Ofcom will have a principal duty to protect the interests of consumers. There will be a new consumer panel to advise the regulator, able to research consumer views and concerns about service delivery and to represent those concerns to Ofcom and others. It will be independently appointed, decide its own research objectives and publish its findings and advice.
Ofcom will have a crucial role in ensuring that our interests as citizens are properly respected by the world of communications. It will maintain content standards in the broadcast media and ensure that the risk of harm, especially to the vulnerable and to children, is minimised in all electronic media. Ofcom will therefore be responsible for maintaining arrangements such as the watershed on free-to-air channels and for promoting better understanding of media messages and the use of new mechanisms such as rating and filtering systems that can assist the safe use of the internet.
We have carried out extensive consultation in preparing for the White Paper. In response to our request for views in February, we received some 160 replies. We have heard many views in person and we are very grateful to all who have contributed, including the group of experts who provided some clear thinking in the crucial early stages of preparation. I pay special tribute to the boards and staff of the current regulators, who have worked in an open and constructive way to help us to develop the policies that we are announcing today.
Broadcasting and telecommunications affect all of us every day. We have set out in the White Paper our proposals for a new framework for regulation, which we believe will preserve the best of the past and prepare the UK to take advantage of the new technologies of today and of tomorrow. Alongside our firm policy proposals are some on which we invite further views. I look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members, and I commend the White Paper to the House.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the advance notice he provided—albeit somewhat truncated by a fire alarm and evacuation in his Department; I hope that all is now well. In fact, we have had more advance notice than usual, as much of the statement seems to have appeared in the Financial Times this morning.
In other respects, the White Paper has been slow in coming. A pledge to reform the regulation of media and broadcasting was contained in the Labour party manifesto for the current Parliament; it is another pledge that will not be kept. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the planned legislative changes that he has announced today stand no chance of taking effect until 2002 at the earliest? The media and communications industries are moving fast; the Government are moving painfully slowly. Industry often complains that the Government try to do too much, but here we have an unusual example of the Government getting in the way by doing too little.
Progress toward today's announcement has been helped neither by an undignified turf war between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry nor by the confusion and incompetence that is the hallmark of Labour in office.


The House will recall how those two Departments have been falling each over—[HON. MEMBERS: "Each over?"]—falling over each other like characters in a comic sketch for the past two years. In March 1998, the DTI published its utilities regulation Green Paper; in July 1999, both Departments published a convergence Green Paper. In November 1999, the DTI announced a Utilities Bill, which included proposals for the communications industry and, in January this year, received its Second Reading—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] My hon. Friends remember it well. In February, the Government announced a forthcoming communications White Paper—which is, presumably, what we have today. However, in March, the communications part of the Utilities Bill was unceremoniously dumped.
I had always thought of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport as having the last word in dither and incompetence, but I now realise that I have led a rather sheltered life all these years. In this case at least, the right hon. Gentleman has nothing on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which is probably why the former has come to the House to make today's statement.
The technical and regulatory aspects of media and communications are often regarded as subjects fit only for anoraks, but they are vital, dynamic, growing industries—powerhouses of new employment and investment with the capacity to enhance or to damage the quality of all our lives. There is an urgent need to update the regulatory framework to reflect the dramatic changes, such as the development of the internet, that have occurred since the Broadcasting Act 1996 was passed. What the Government have announced today, after all the consultation and debate, takes us a little further forward, but not far enough.
This is a White Paper with a heavy hint of green about it. It is very general indeed, and it has one major failing. The Secretary of State referred several times in his statement to public service broadcasting, but he has failed to define it. Until we define what public sector broadcasting means in the digital age, we shall continue to fail the industry.
Conservative Members support in principle—and, indeed, have argued for—a new single regulatory body capable of taking a balanced view across converging media. It is essential, however, that the new body has a clear and unequivocal remit with stated priorities. A tension exists between competition and content issues. How does the Secretary of State intend that tension to be addressed within the new regulatory body? Whether the system will work at all will depend on getting that right.
We welcome the proposal for a new consumer panel, but will that have muscle or will it be another focus group? Will the new regulator be a panel or a person? Who will pay for the new regulatory body? To what will Ofcom be accountable—the Department for Culture, Media and Sport or the Department of Trade and Industry? Who will make appointments to it and what sanctions will it have? Will there be financial sanctions, and will those apply to the BBC?
Given the pace of change in the industry, the only way to avoid having to come back to the cumbersome process of legislation will be to ensure that the new regulator has sufficient flexibility to meet changing needs. How does the Secretary of State intend to deal with that? How will the new regulator be affected by any finalised EU directives on

telecoms? In the week that the Prime Minister has spent so many late nights in Nice, the Secretary of State seems to have forgotten all about the EU.
We welcome the proposal to bring the activities of the BBC into the new regulatory framework, but will the Secretary of State confirm, as his statement implied, that, as regards complaints about political bias, the BBC will cease to act as judge and jury in its own case?
What powers will Ofcom have to ensure fair competition between the BBC and other broadcasters, and, just as important, between other internet publishers? Does the Secretary of State recognise the need to prevent the BBC from using the licence fee to crowd out commercial competition? Will that issue be dealt with by Ofcom under the Competition Acts or is new legislation envisaged?
Will Ofcom take on responsibility for ensuring wider industry access to local telephone lines? What measures does the White Paper contain to ensure that we do not continue to fall behind Germany and other major economies in developing internet access? What will the White Paper do to encourage the take-up of digital television?
I note that the Secretary of State has paved the way for the creation of a single ITV, but his statement is particularly vague about the reform of radio. Many people in the radio industry will be extremely disappointed that, after so long, they are going to have only further delay and consultation.
I particularly welcome measures in the White Paper aimed at reinforcing the watershed and the protection of children from inappropriate material.
The Government have completely ducked any specific reform of the cross-media ownership rules. The Secretary of State will be aware that there is a powerful case for change here. Has his timidity on that point anything to do with the fact that there is a general election on the way—an election that the Government do not deserve to win?
We welcome the general thrust of today's statement, but we do not trust the Government's meddling instincts. Where there is a need to be radical, the Government have been timid. The vital need to balance the interests of commerce and culture will not be met by a Government who understand neither.

Mr. Smith: I note that the hon. Gentleman was, as one might put it, "falling each over" his vocabulary while he made that contribution. I might well describe his contribution as an infrastructure lacking content: perhaps we should send in Ofcom to regulate the Tory Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman came up with the old chestnut about there supposedly being a turf war between two Departments. That is a gross slur on the good and constructive work that the DTI and the DCMS have done together on producing the White Paper. The team has worked extremely well together and the White Paper has been agreed at every stage, both between the two Departments and across government.
The hon. Gentleman eventually got round to some specific questions. He said that nowhere in the White Paper was public service broadcasting defined. I suggest that he reads pages 48 to 51, where it is comprehensively defined. He asked whether the consumer panel would have muscle. I suggest to him that the White Paper's


proposals to establish an independently appointed panel which can publish research and has a statutory right to put its views clearly and publicly to Ofcom are, indeed, proposals for a body with muscle. He asked whether the regulator would be a panel or a person. If he reads the document, he will discover that it will be a board, not a single person, and that it will have an independent chairman. He also asked to whom Ofcom would be accountable. It will be jointly accountable to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the role of the BBC. As chapter 5 of the White Paper spells out, the BBC governors will retain a specific role for upholding the remit of the BBC, just as the board of Channel 4 will have a role for upholding the remit of Channel 4, and the managers of ITV will likewise have a role for ITV. However, there will be a role for Ofcom in ensuring that the general economic and competition provisions that apply to all broadcasters apply also to the BBC. It will also have a role in ensuring that the measurable, quantifiable aspects of public service broadcasting—aspects such as independent production quotas and ensuring news and current affairs in peak time, and that regional targets are met—are regulated across the broadcasting landscape, including the BBC.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the proposals mean that we are moving towards a single ITV. The sector-specific provisions that currently prevent such a move from occurring—the 15 per cent. rule and the two London licences rule—are due to be lifted. However, any proposal to move towards a single ITV would have to be subject to competition law, competition policy and, ultimately, to the decisions of the competition authorities. The hon. Gentleman asked about the future of radio. We spell out in the White Paper the way in which we want to move away from the current radio points system for the calculation of ownership requirements, and make it very clear that we want to do that.
In all those respects, the White Paper is very clear. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman has more time to consider the detail—obviously, he has had the White Paper for less time than I have—he will find that his concerns are readily addressed. The key message from the White Paper is that it is about giving responsible freedom to the broadcasters. Yes, it will be a greater freedom than many of them have had until now, but it comes with the expectation that they will exercise it responsibly and that measures will be in place to ensure that they do so.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are about to have a major debate that is time limited, so I must appeal for short questions, as well as short answers.

Mr. John Maxton: I welcome the White Paper from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry, and I look forward to debating it in a little more detail in the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. However, I should like some clarification. First, will my right hon. Friend give a total assurance that the BBC's ability to be the highest-quality broadcaster in the world, as well as

one of its most innovative, will not be affected by the proposals? Secondly, will he ensure that that ability extends to the very good website that the BBC operates, and which it will develop in the coming years? Nothing must be done to prevent the BBC from using that to give people throughout the world the quality that the corporation can offer.

Mr. Smith: The quality of BBC programming and production values will be enhanced by our proposals in the statement. That will, of course, apply to the excellent BBC online service, as it will do to BBC television programme making.

Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome what is overwhelmingly a sensible and robust set of proposals—I felt that the Conservative response was a little churlish—and it would be difficult for me to do otherwise, because the proposals echo many recently published Lib-Dem proposals; perhaps it is comforting that, in the digital era, we still have repeats.
I turn to a repeat of a less welcome nature. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the White Paper's proposals were trailed significantly in the press today and at the weekend. What briefing took place of journalists for last Sunday's newspapers?
How will the relationship between Ofcom and the Competition Commission work to prevent duplication? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the probable formation of one ITV will not in any way reduce regional programming and regional production? Will his commitment to ensure that ITV is available on satellite television extend only to that one ITV—in other words, London—or will all ITV regional companies be accessible on satellite?
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the future of BBC World, which he did not mention in his statement? In the digital era, it is surely a little odd for the Foreign Office to maintain that it should support the BBC World Service—radio services involve technology from a bygone era and, although radio is still important, it is only one medium—while there are no proposals to ensure that BBC World is similarly supported.

Mr. Smith: In relation to briefings of the press, I gave an interview to The Daily Telegraph for its Saturday edition and to the Financial Times for this morning's edition. I spoke only in the most general terms about the principles lying behind all that we are seeking to do. Other briefings, I have to confess, I know nothing about.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Ofcom and the Competition Commission. They will work together to regulate the media from the point of view of competition policy. Ofcom will clearly have a role in closely advising the Office of Fair Trading in its approach to these matters.
On any move towards a single ITV and its impact on regional production, we set out in chapter 4 of the White Paper some very tough provisions on the need to maintain regional strength. For example, one provision states that if a regional licence changes hands at any stage, Ofcom will assess the regional proposals that are being made and enhance regional requirements at that point. If ownership changes, regional requirements will be strengthened, rather than diminished, in the process.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the accessibility of ITV companies on satellite. The answer is that, so far as possible, we would want to ensure that the relevant regional programme was available to the relevant region. That is the principle that we want to set in place, although it may of course be necessary to sort out some technical issues to achieve it.
On the World Service, radio may be an old technology, but it is a very popular, versatile and high-quality technology. It offers ready access to virtually all communities across the world, and the World Service does an excellent job in using that medium to make impartial news and current affairs information available to the world.

Mr. Tom Levitt: My right hon. Friend mentioned the need to allow disabled people access to broadcasting services. He will be aware that about 1,000 people in every constituency rely to a greater or lesser extent on subtitling. What measures will he introduce to ensure far greater availability of subtitling outside the traditional analogue channels than there is now?

Mr. Smith: Such matters will rest in tier 1 of the three-tier regulation system for broadcasting, which will apply to all broadcasters. We shall look to Ofcom to ensure that subtitling is enhanced beyond what is available at the moment.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Secretary of State has given birth to a White Paper after a long pregnancy, which began during the previous Government when I was a Minister. I remember very well many of the better bits of what he has announced. I commiserate with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who should have made this statement. I hope that he has not lost control of the matters that we gained for the DTI and Oftel, such as the electronic programme guide and the technology under the Broadcasting Act 1996, when a Bill, because it is crucial that those matters are in the hands of the DTI if the commercial and creative industries are to be best promoted.
Will the Secretary of State please make it clear what is intended for digital television, because that is the unspoken part. The right hon. Gentleman is so passive about this issue. Surely it is no good waiting for 95 per cent. coverage if what is needed is a public-private sector partnership to get the thing going. In a multi-digital channel age, it is not enough to announce the semi-continuation of the BBC and the statutory position of Channel 4. Public service broadcasting now covers a multiplicity of channels and various means of delivery, and we must completely redefine how public service broadcasting can best be achieved, rather than continually backing just the BBC.

Mr. Smith: First, may I say what a great pleasure it is to see the hon. Gentleman in his place.
The DTI and DCMS are at one on the need to ensure that responsibility for access to the new media—especially issues such as the electronic programme guide and access for programme makers to satellite and cable channels—comes under the framework that we are establishing.
On digital switch-over, we are right to say that we do not want to switch off the analogue signal until we are absolutely certain that everyone who can receive the

analogue signal at the moment will be able to receive digital signals in the future. It would be folly for any Government or any party to suggest that they wanted to do otherwise. That and the test of affordability are the two fundamental tests that we have put in place. We have set a target timetable of 2006-10, and we believe that that can be achieved, but those tests must be met.

Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, the Independent Television Commission has the power to monitor the commitments made by franchise holders on the delivery of programmes. What in the White Paper will ensure that franchise holders of lucrative contracts deliver the programmes that they promised to deliver when they were awarded the franchises?

Mr. Smith: We propose a stronger process to ensure that that happens. ITV franchise holders will be expected to issue a statement every year of their programming, scheduling and public service priorities. They will have to be tested against that statement during the year, and Ofcom will be expected to analyse how they have performed against that statement before they make the next one.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Given that the same sure management hands have presided over the finances of the dome, the letting of the new lottery contract and Oftel's control of prostitutes' cards in telephone boxes, and given the analogous delays in the development of the Financial Services Authority, what is the latest possible date for the commencement of the powers that the Secretary of State envisages?

Mr. Smith: First, let me say that we do not intend to put the New Millennium Experience Company in charge of Ofcom.
As for timing, it is proposed that we should seek to legislate to implement the White Paper at an early stage in a new Parliament—provided, of course, that we succeed in persuading the electorate to give us their trust.

Mr. Frank Doran: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and, in particular, his robust comments about preserving regional identity. He did, however, mention a fairly significant change in the way in which the system would be regulated. He talked of a lighter touch and of transparent self-regulation. Will he say a little more about how that is likely to operate in practice?
Will the existing licence conditions of Channel 3 companies continue in force? There is also the question of regional regulation. Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that Ofcom will have regional offices? Will it have a Scottish office, for example, and will it have a Scottish board member?

Mr. Smith: The maintenance of regional strength will be a matter for the second, not the third, tier of regulation. It will not be a matter for self-regulation; it will be regulated directly by Ofcom. Commitments will be expected, and commitments will be held to.
As we spelled out specifically in the White Paper, we will ensure that the needs and interests of viewers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in the regions of England, are taken fully into account by Ofcom. That will undoubtedly mean its having a regional presence.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the legislation be flexible enough to enable a Welsh broadcasting regulatory authority to be established? If not, how will the specific interests of Wales—particularly with regard to S4C—be taken on board? Will Ofcom have an office in Wales? Will the Secretary of State guarantee the operating freedom of S4C? Will he assure us that it will not be compromised by bureaucracy and that it will continue to be adequately funded?

Mr. Smith: We do not intend to make any change in the format of S4C, its statutory responsibilities or its funding system. We want membership of the consumers' panel to be drawn from all parts of the United Kingdom, and to include specific representation from Wales. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), we intend to ensure that Ofcom takes particular account of the views, needs and wishes of people in both Scotland and Wales. Ofcom will undoubtedly have a place in the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I welcome the unity of purpose between my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Culture, Media and Sport. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), it contrasts starkly with what occurred under the last Administration. In April 1996, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) said that
we should not set in place a regulatory system for a fully integrated media market that does not yet exist.—[Official Report, 16 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 543.]
In fact, it clearly did exist.
May I ask my right hon. Friend what the relationship will be between Ofcom and the other regulatory bodies in relation to dominant players, especially when one of those dominant players is a large newspaper owner? Why should newspapers not be included in Ofcom's remit? May I also ask what relationship my right hon. Friend expects to develop between spectrum allocation under Ofcom, and the role of the Ministry of Defence? In peacetime, one would expect Ofcom to play a significant part.

Mr. Smith: The Ministry of Defence has its allocated spectrum. It would not be sensible to seek to take back some of that allocation on a purely temporary basis and yield it up at a time of conflict; such a system would be a nonsense. We have no intention of removing the MOD's responsibility in relation to its portion of spectrum.
The regulation of competition affairs in respect of newspapers will be governed by the pretty tough competition rules introduced by the Competition Act 1998. The role of Ofcom will be as adviser to the OFT and to the competition authorities. There is no proposal that competition policy should be relaxed in any way.

Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) indicated that

many of us on the Conservative Benches have been promoting the cause of a communications development commission for a long time. When I came here this afternoon, I confidently expected the White Paper to be the realisation of those dreams. The long-overdue White Paper is in fact timid and narrow. It deals with nothing like all the subjects that should be covered by a proper communications White Paper, such as electronic press, e-commerce and all sorts of other issues.
The Secretary of State said that the White Paper provided a new framework of proposals for regulation. It is regulation, regulation, regulation. The word "development" is not mentioned once.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) asked the Secretary of State—he did not reply; perhaps he would like to now—who Ofcom would be answerable to and what independent powers it would have. Is it independent or is it a Ministry of truth?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not read chapter 3, where we set out in some detail our approach to e-commerce and to the development of the internet. I hope that, as he is reading it now, he will see that that is indeed the case. He obviously was not listening when I answered the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) precisely. Ofcom will be answerable jointly to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I welcome the White Paper, but is my right hon. Friend is aware that equipment that could legally describe itself as digital is being sold for as much as £2,000? What consideration has he given to some kitemark, or perhaps to bringing, through early regulation, the signal transparency to consumers that what they are buying will be able to receive the new digital communications?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many advertisements for televisions and for other equipment label them as digital in some shape or another although they do not receive digital television signals. We want to ensure that there is greater clarity for the consumer and that the consumer can have greater trust in the claims by manufacturers and retailers. I am in discussion with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to find out what steps we can take to tackle that problem.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Can the Minister explain how cross-border regulation will develop as in paragraph 8.3, bearing in mind not only that many companies in satellite television, internet service provision and the rest are global rather than British, but that the Government agreed in Nice that the French should continue their national veto blocking international progress in that key area?

Mr. Smith: Basic requirements are already in place that have been agreed through the European Union. They include the television without frontiers directive and apply across the board to any Europe-based broadcaster or provider. The provisions that will apply specifically to Britain will apply to any broadcaster that is based in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Paul Goggins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, yesterday,


the Secretary of State for International Development published a White Paper about the impact of globalisation on developing countries. Is he aware that the number of factual programmes about developing countries broadcast by the four main channels has fallen by 50 per cent. in the past 10 years? What action does he propose to take to increase substantially the amount of coverage?

Mr. Smith: It will not be for me or for government to dictate to broadcasters the precise nature of scheduling or programme content. However, what we can do, and what we do in the White Paper, is to make it very clear that, in our view, public service broadcasters—and that means not only the BBC but ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5—must be in the business of providing high-quality, varied, mixed and challenging programme schedules. They should not be going simply for the lowest common denominator of popular entertainment. Although that must of course be part of what they provide, it must not be the sole content. That principle, which is what public service broadcasting is all about, is fundamentally enshrined in the White Paper. It will be up to the BBC governors, the boards of the other public service broadcasters and Ofcom to ensure that that occurs.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On behalf of the European informatics market group and the all-party parliamentary and industry information society group, of which I am chairman, I thank both the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for their officials' co-operation with the groups. I hope that that co-operation will continue. However, I have yet to meet an official or a regulator—and I think that I have spoken to most of them—who believes that Ofcom should report to two Departments. Could both Secretaries of State please resolve the matter once and for all? The move will not be successful unless it involves only one Department.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will also commit himself at least to introducing a draft Bill on the matter in this Session. Clearly, all three main parties agree on what has to be done. If we at least had a draft Bill, when the Conservatives come to power, most of the work would be done and we could move quickly to implementing the provisions.

Mr. Smith: I certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that co-operation with EURIM will continue. I also tell him that co-operation between the two Departments has been extremely good and has produced a very constructive White Paper. I see no reason why that co-operation should not continue. As for the hon. Gentleman's final point, I certainly hope that we shall be legislating much sooner than the Conservatives ever getting back into power—a remote prospect indeed.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: I would support a communications Department as a part

of the proposals. If we have Ofcom, we will need only one communications Department. I hope that such provision would be included in a draft Bill.
There seems to be some confusion about one matter. If we are to have digital television internet access by 2005, but switch-over will not occur until 2006 or 2010, we will have to find a way of giving away digital boxes, perhaps by using a private finance initiative. We have to find some way of overcoming the digital divide. If we do not do so—and the White Paper does not deal with the problem—we will not be the most modern economy in the world.
If the BBC does not want to establish a public service education or sports channel, would Ofcom have sufficient money to commission one?

Mr. Smith: On the advent of digital television and internet access, of course digital television is not the only means by which people can gain access to the internet. It is, however, becoming an increasingly important means for people to gain such access, as the very rapid take-up of ONdigital's service, for example, is proving.
As for Ofcom's powers, it will not be possible, and nor should it be possible, for Ofcom to start up a channel or to enforce the start-up of a channel. What Ofcom will be able to do, however, is to do research, to provide encouragement, to identify gaps in the market and to advise broadcasters. I certainly hope that broadcasters will take account of the research that Ofcom does.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: For the benefit of my constituents who still cannot receive terrestrial television, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that "must carry on all platforms" provision will mean that, in future, ITV—which is Channel 3—ITV2 and ONdigital will be carried on satellite? Could he also possibly answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) about whether he is proposing any changes in the cross-media ownership regulations?

Mr. Smith: We spell out that the public service provision—channels that are currently free to air on analogue, together with licence-fee funded free-to-air channels—must be available on all platforms. That is the "must carry" obligation that we have set in place.
On cross-media ownership, we spell out clearly the issues that need to be addressed. We also set out clearly the principles of diversity and plurality—plurality is extremely important in this respect—and invite views on how to proceed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's views will be among those that we will read with pleasure.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I regret that we must move on to the main business.

Oral Answers to Questions — Points of Order

Mr. John Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will be aware, this House is under an obligation, as Britain is a signatory to the European convention on human rights, to ensure that all Bills put before the House comply with our treaty obligations. Indeed, that is written on Bills presented to the House. I asked the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), whether that was also the case in connection with the declaration of fundamental rights, which has now been incorporated into the treaty of Nice. In his reply, the Minister of State insinuated—somewhat worryingly and depressingly—that as a former chairman of our Back-Bench European affairs committee, I was better able to answer that question than he was. Although that may be true, it is surely a contempt of this House and of your office, Mr. Speaker, for Ministers not to tell the House the legal implications of the treaty obligations into which they have entered.

Mr. Speaker: Ministers are responsible for their own replies. However, I will read Hansard and contact the hon. Gentleman after I have done so. I hope that that is helpful to him.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the statement on the communications White Paper—and it has happened on previous occasions—the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said that people can read the answer to their questions in the White Paper to which he had referred. However, it is impossible for us to obtain copies of a White Paper—at least in theory—until the Minister sits down after his statement. Could you instruct Ministers that that is the case, Mr. Speaker, and either remind them that we have to ask questions about a White Paper because we cannot see it until the statement on it is made, or ensure that there is a change to the rules, so that the relevant White Paper is made available shortly before the statement is made? In fact, today, one person who asked a question already had the White Paper, suggesting that he had left the Chamber and re-entered it before he asked his question.

Mr. Speaker: Once again, I am not responsible for the answers of Ministers. However, Ministers should not make reference to documents that are not available at the time of the statement. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you might look at

the rules about giving out White Papers. They are available as soon as the Minister stands up, but we are not allowed physically to leave the Chamber if we want to be called to ask a question. Would it not be more sensible for the attendants to hand out copies of the White Paper while the statement on it is being made? That would improve our ability to represent our constituents better.

Mr. Speaker: As I have just stated, perhaps Ministers should not make reference to chapters—

Mr. Bruce: They did.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer in the best way that I can. Ministers should not make reference to chapters in White Papers until those documents are available to everyone in the House. I am the custodian of the rules, but if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about them, he, as a Back Bencher, is capable of changing them.

Mr. Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask that it should be your practice that in the event of a point of order in this House leading to a private exchange of letters between you and an hon. Member, that letter may be made public for the benefit of all Members of this House?

Mr. Speaker: I regret that the hon. Gentleman heard the point of order of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) while sitting on the Front Bench and then took the opportunity to raise a point of order from the Back Benches. When I write a letter to a Member of this House, it is up to that Member whether he wishes to make that document public. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have listened to what I said. Ministers are responsible for their replies; nevertheless, I will look at Hansard and communicate with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West. That is the way that I will do it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

HOMES

Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Secretary Milburn, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Nick Raynsford, Mr. Chris Mullin and Mr. David Lock, presented a Bill to make provision for imposing requirements in relation to the marketing of residential properties in England and Wales; to make further provision about the functions of local housing authorities relating to homelessness and the allocation of housing accommodation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 5].

Orders of the Day — Debate on the Address

[FIFTH DAY]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6 December],
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—/Sir John Morris.]

Question again proposed.

Orders of the Day — Home Affairs and Inner Cities

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I should tell the House that Back Benchers' speeches will be limited to 12 minutes.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:
 "But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech makes no mention of the decline in police numbers since 1997; note the continuing failure of many of the Government's measures to combat youth crime and that the Government remains committed to the early release from jail of thousands of criminals; deplore the Government's further attempt to restrict the right to trial by jury and its failure to put forward any measures to strengthen the rights of victims of crime, or to make prisons more purposeful, or sentencing more transparent, or to clear up the chaos in the asylum system; and further regret the absence of measures to halt the decline of inner cities and the failure to create a coherent programme of actions since 1997 to address the conditions that give rise to the growth of crime in deprived urban areas, notably poorly-maintained housing, rising homelessness, increasing numbers of empty houses and failing inner city schools, which have combined with the Government's commitment to building on green fields to perpetuate migration from inner cities.
Last year, in the debate on the Address, I catalogued a series of failures by the Home Secretary and the Government and suggested that the contents of the then Queen's Speech would do little to rectify those failures. This year, I am obliged to observe an even worse catalogue of failures and the fact that this year's Gracious Speech will do very little to address the problems that most people encounter in their everyday lives as a result of the Government's abysmal failure to tackle crime and the causes of crime.
In the past year, despite promises of an extra 5,000 police officers, and then another 4,000, police numbers have continued to plummet; crime has risen by 190,000 offences, and the Home Secretary's legislation, which failed to work last year, has still failed to work 12 months later. To this day, not a single child curfew order has been issued, and all that the right hon. Gentleman can say in response to that lamentable failure is that it is the fault of the
conservatism of the social services departments.
So we now know that it is not his fault at all.
A year ago, when the Home Secretary was attacked for his misleading party conference speech, he blamed his officials. The same officials seem to have been blamed for everything that has gone wrong under his stewardship of the Home Office—that is a lot of blame. They were blamed for forgetting to renew the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts; blamed for wrongly briefing the right hon. Gentleman when he gave a press conference on asylum; blamed for causing him to give the Welsh Assembly powers over Welsh criminals; and blamed for causing him to publish the names and addresses in the Macpherson report. Can that be the same man who once said that
we take full responsibility as Ministers
and claimed that he would not hide
behind officials' skirts…?—[Official Report, 24 May 1999; Vol. , c. 33.]
If it is not officials, it is social workers. In reality, the buck stops with the Government, and the catalogue of failure on crime and disorder since 1997 shows that the buck stops with the Home Secretary.
The succession of Downing street leaks during the summer showed that the Prime Minister is rattled. Who can forget his request for eye-catching initiatives, particularly on law and order, to try to portray the Government as a success? Only a Government so out of touch, so totally unaware of the problems of real people, would think that a few eye-catching initiatives would be enough to hide their total failure on law and order. What did that request produce? What was the eye-catching announcement? Why, it was the appointment of Lord Birt as the Government's new crony crime tsar.
I recently asked the Home Secretary how many times he had met Lord Birt since his appointment. The answer was interesting. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he had met Lord Birt once, on 25 May. That is interesting because Lord Birt was not appointed until 10 July. The right hon. Gentleman has appointed a crime tsar to whom he has not spoken once since appointment. That is another ludicrous example of the Government's summer of spin.
What has the Home Secretary come up with after three and a half years in government? What eye-catching policies are to be introduced by the right hon. Gentleman over the next few months? He seems to have decided to use his final Queen's Speech in office to attempt to put right the failure of his first Queen's Speech. [Interruption.] That failure is indeed terrible.
First, there is to be a rehashed version of the Home Secretary's discredited curfew plan for young people. After nearly four years in government, he is still trying to make his first year's legislation work properly. Those are the proposals that the Prime Minister described, in the face of all opposition, as "eminently sensible". They are evidently not, because, after two years, not a single child care order has been issued. That might have been less catastrophic if the Home Secretary had accepted our original advice and set the age limit at 16, which—belatedly, and with no apology for past error—he is at last going to do.
Secondly, another Bill has been introduced to restrict the right to trial by jury. After three and a half years in government, the Home Secretary is still trying to get this unnecessary and thoroughly rejected legislation through Parliament. What better example could there be of this Government's arrogance? The Bill has twice been rejected


in Parliament by what is, according to the Government's own claims, the more democratic House of Lords, yet the Government are still trying to push it through. The Home Secretary has been opposed by the Criminal Bar Association, the Society of Labour Lawyers, the Legal Action Group, civil rights groups, the Institute of Race Relations, the Howard League for Penal Reform, and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders.
The proposals are opposed by everyone, it seems, except the Home Secretary and his colleagues. However, the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister have not always been so enthusiastic about the measure. This is the proposal of which the Prime Minister said:
It is totally unsatisfactory to leave this to magistrates to decide. Fundamental rights to justice cannot be driven by administrative convenience. If we are to speed up and improve court efficiency, there are better ways to do it.
This is the proposal of which the Attorney-General, Lord Williams, said:
 This would be madness … I hope that Parliament will refuse to countenance legislation of this kind.
Furthermore, let us not forget that this was the proposal of which the Home Secretary himself said:
 Surely, cutting down the right to jury trial, making the system less fair, is not only wrong but short-sighted, and likely to prove ineffective.—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 433.]
He said that only a few months before he introduced the measure in the House.
In case that is not clear enough, I shall quote from the Home Secretary's response to the proposals in the document, "The Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System", published in 1997. He said:
We are opposed to a removal of the right of a jury trial. We do so because it is a fundamental right where people's honesty is at stake.
There we have it, as clear as day: the Home Secretary was opposed to that proposal. What made him change his mind in just a few weeks? Was it the fact that the proposal would reduce unnecessary delays in the justice system? No, it was not. It could not have been that, because, as the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), admitted, the Conservative policy of plea before venue had already done that. The answer is that the main effect of the Bill will be that more than 5,000 criminals will serve shorter prison sentences. That is the sole advantage of the Bill, from the Home Secretary's point of view. The Bill is wrong: it attacks fundamental liberties, and it should not proceed. We shall steadfastly oppose it.
What else does the Gracious Speech offer us? At first, we were quite hopeful that there would be a Bill to recover the assets of drug dealers and other criminals, but on closer examination that turned out to be only a draft Bill. I asked myself why. If I ask myself, I get a more sensible reply than if I ask the Home Secretary. Could he be having trouble making it comply with his human rights legislation?

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: It is fascinating to hear that when the right hon. Lady wants a sensible reply, she asks herself. Who did she ask when

she introduced, at the recent Tory conference, her policy to deal with minor drug offences? Was it just herself, or was anyone else involved?

Miss Widdecombe: It involved a very large number of people who are concerned to eliminate the scourge of drugs from society. Is there a single measure in the Queen's Speech to attack the scourge of supply and demand of drugs? No, there is not. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about sensible measures to tackle that problem, he need not look to the Labour party, because it simply does not have the answers.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No, I want to make some progress.
I was asking whether the Home Secretary was introducing a draft Bill because he was having trouble making it comply with his human rights legislation. The Home Office briefing note on the Bill says:
care is being taken to ensure that the Bill would be European Convention on Human Rights compliant.
I am not an expert on spin, but that seems to be saying that the Home Office has no idea how to make the Bill compatible with other policies. This Administration continually lecture us on joined-up government, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot even join up his Department.
Just a few months ago, the Bill was supposed to be important. Let us look back a bit. A Minister said in May:
we need to confiscate unlawful assets that have built up. This should be the norm, not the exception … we will make sure the structures are put in place as soon as possible.
Who said that? Well, it was the Minister for the Cabinet Office. Another Minister said in June:
we aim to legislate as soon as Parliamentary time allows to give the police and customs the powers they need to track and then confiscate the assets of drug dealers.
Who said that? Perhaps if I continue, I will jog his memory. He went on to say:
To the communities who are fighting back we say we are on your side. To those causing misery—the dealers, the traffickers, the money launderers, we are on your case.
By now, we must all recognise the empty rhetoric. It was, of course, the Home Secretary promising to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allowed. What is wrong with now? I thought that he believed in speeding along.

Ms Hazel Blears: If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is dilatory in his alleged failure to legislate, what was wrong with introducing such measures during 18 years of Conservative Government, when there was a complete failure to address the issues and to protect the communities that suffer from those serious organised criminals?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady cannot have been following the debate too closely. We introduced legislation on the confiscation of drug dealers' assets when we were in government. It is not an invention of the right hon. Gentleman. He has merely failed to follow it


up, despite endless promises to do so. He stands convicted of failing to deliver on his promises. It is all spin and no delivery.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): rose—

Miss Widdecombe: Come on—let us have some more.

Mrs. Roche: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that legislation on the proceeds of crime which was introduced in the previous Parliament was, in fact, a private Member's Bill, and was wholeheartedly supported by Labour? It was not introduced in Government time.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady cannot rewrite history. If she is looking for which Government promoted that piece of legislation, she will find that it was the previous Conservative Government.
Before that entirely futile interruption, I was asking why the Home Secretary was, to use the word of the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), dilatory. I did not say anything so harsh; I asked why he was dithering. If he is so attracted to early release, why does he not release some of his legislation early? He has found time for a totally unnecessary Bill on trial by jury, to which he has not previously committed himself, but not for a Bill to confiscate criminal assets, to which he has committed himself time and again.
What has the right hon. Gentleman to offer? There is no Bill to end the crisis in policing—just further burdens on the patrolling officer. There is no Bill to tackle last year's rise in sexual offences; no Bill to enhance the rights of victims in the justice system; no measure to make prisons more purposeful; no Bill to make sentences more transparent. Does that not show that his priorities lie not in effective action, but in headline-grabbing announcements in an attempt to salvage his long-gone reputation for being tough on crime?
The public will not be fooled by the announcements. They have seen and suffered from the decline in police numbers.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): indicated dissent.

Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It would appear that he denies that people have suffered from the decline in police numbers.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I want to tackle the right hon. Gentleman first. When I said that people had suffered from the decline in police numbers, he shook his head. Does he dispute that? If he does, I shall give way to listen to him. He does not dispute it; he denies that people have suffered from the decline in police numbers.

Mr. Blizzard: The right hon. Lady has made much of headline-grabbing announcements and eye-catching

measures. Would she regard automatic fines for first-offence cannabis users as an eye-catching measure and a headline-grabbing announcement?

Miss Widdecombe: I regard the fight against drugs as a top priority, and I am sorry that the Government do not share that ambition.
The public lived through the massive rise in crime last year. They do not understand—it is as simple as that—the Home Secretary's decision to release nearly 27,000 prisoners from jail early to offend again.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend was with me when I talked to the chief constable of Dorset. Is it not a plain fact that it does not matter how much legislation this place passes if the police do not have enough people on the ground or enough resources? They have no overtime budget, so they cannot take special measures. Crime is going up while police resources are being kept unacceptably low.

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend speaks correctly for his constituents and for those of many other hon. Members, including those of Labour Members who are unwilling to admit the facts and who cheer in derision when we claim that people have suffered from more crime. If those hon. Members think that the real world does not consist of rising crime, they do not live in it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I shall make a little progress; I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would want me to do so.
The public want action to tackle the rise in crime through effective sentencing and through an increase in police officers. They want action to ensure that prisoners serve the sentences given to them by the court. We are committed to such action. The Prime Minister describes that as "nonsense". Nothing better encapsulates how completely out of touch this Government are.
The Prime Minister once said:
the people's priorities are our priorities.
However, he is now saying that the people's priorities are "nonsense".

Mr. Straw: As the right hon. Lady has got on to the issue of resources, will she clear up a certain amount of confusion between her and the shadow Chancellor, who has gone out of his way to say that there would be protection for resources allocated to health and education? Regarding the Home Office, he has said that money allocated to asylum and immigration would have to be additional and that savings would therefore be made elsewhere in the Home Office. Those savings could come only from the probation service, the Prison Service or the police. Which service would they come from?

Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman can do better than that if he puts his mind to it. It is only three years since we funded 3,000 more police officers than the right hon. Gentleman is funding at the moment. If it was possible to do that then, it is possible to do it in the future. We had a record prison building programme, which we could afford. If it was possible to do that then, it is


possible to do it in future. We made probation more effective than ever before. If it was possible to do that then, it is possible to do it in future. The real difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself is willpower. He does not have the will, but we have the will to tackle crime.

Mr. Straw: I hope that the right hon. Lady feels better after that. I have a simple question for her: would she increase police spending above the level that we promised?

Miss Widdecombe: As we are going to increase the size of the police force, I should have thought that it stood to reason that we shall have to pay more. However, as we were paying that only three years ago, it is not an insurmountable mountain. The Government regard the matter as an insurmountable mountain and have completely failed to tackle it.
I look forward to the people repaying the Prime Minister's compliment in describing their priorities as nonsense when, with effrontery, he asks them for another go at government. I am confident that four years of utter failure will be repaid in full when that time comes.
I am sure that we all remember the Government's commitment to licensing reform. Last June, a front-page story in The Times was headed "Pubs to open around the clock next year". The Times assured us:
As early as summer next year, Britons will be able to enjoy the same liberal drinking laws as the rest of Europe, where people spill out of restaurants, cinemas and theatres to drink in cafés and bars until the early hours of the morning.
That idyll was spun to The Times, but it appears to have been wrong. Clearly, the Home Secretary has changed his mind since June.
Were the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph wrong when they reported that the Government wanted to increase the sentence for dangerous driving after the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said:
there is a strong case for making causing death by dangerous driving the motoring equivalent of manslaughter, which has a life sentence. Parliament and the public are entitled to expect the courts to impose long and heavy sentences in serious cases.
Was the Minister just making that up as he went along, or are the Government committed to it? If they are, where is the legislation? Or has the Home Secretary completely ignored the wishes of his colleague in the Home Office?

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, as a result of inaction on the licensing laws, this new year's eve, which is the official beginning of the millennium, we shall go back to the usual free for all, rather than have the successful implementation of extended licensing laws that we saw last year? That has been a disappointment to many licensees.

Miss Widdecombe: I am sure that that has been a disappointment to many members of the public as well as to licensees. The hon. Gentleman chose his words carefully when he talked about the Government's inaction.
There is nothing in the Gracious Speech to protect the honest law-abiding person from the criminal. There is nothing to protect the person—

Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I shall finish this passage.
There is nothing to protect the person who seeks to protect his own home and property. As usual, the Government's focus is on the criminal—on releasing the criminal early and ensuring that the criminal is free to commit more crime. They have done nothing to protect the decent and law-abiding householder.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Miss Widdecombe: May I finish this passage? Then I will give way.
It is my view that when a man enters another's property with unlawful intent, he has forfeited his right to equal consideration. People must be able to defend their persons and property or go to another's aid without fear of penalty at law. We will ensure that making that a reality is a priority.
I now give way to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is not her point exactly made by the reintroduction of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, which takes away the right of the ordinary citizen with a clean record to go for trial by jury, but causes a repeat thief who has been convicted time and again and is currently getting an average of just under 11 months from the Crown court to get no more than 3.6 months from the magistrates?

Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Running through the Government's approach to the justice system is a theme of less justice for the victim and more softness for the criminal.

Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ms Oona King: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I shall finish this passage.
The message that the Government have been sending is, "Don't worry—there are fewer people about to catch you, and if they do catch you, it's okay, you will never have got out so quickly." From the victims' point of view, never will criminals have been released so quickly to terrorise them still further.
For four years the Government have ignored the plight of the victim. They have released almost 2,500 burglars from jail early and allowed almost 50 more burglaries to be committed by criminals who, but for the intervention of the Home Secretary, would still have been in jail.


That cannot be said to be the action of a Government who favour the honest person. It favours only the dishonest criminal.

Dr. Starkey: rose—

Ms King: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I shall make progress.

Mr. Alun Michael: Come on. The right hon. Lady promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey).

Miss Widdecombe: I do not think so.
Does the Home Secretary agree with Sir John Stevens, the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation, when they say that the police are in crisis? Does he recognise that police numbers have fallen by 3,000 since he took office? Does he acknowledge that the number of police constables in the service rose year on year throughout the 1990s until he became Home Secretary, and that there are now fewer constables than at any time for a decade? Does he understand the problems caused by the loss of more than 4,000 special constables since 1997? If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he is showing himself to be at odds with every other person in the country who knows that that is the Government's record. If the right hon. Gentleman does acknowledge all those things, why is there nothing in the Gracious Speech to rectify the situation?
The chairman of the Police Federation said that
since 1997 there has been sustained under-investment in the police, resulting in thousands of fewer police officers, heavier workloads and rising crime.
The Police Superintendents Association says:
The situation is urgent. The police service is moving towards the edge of a crisis.
How can that have happened under a Government who promised to support the police? Have the Prime Minister's words from 1994 been entirely forgotten? Did he not say in his leadership election statement:
We want to see more police on the beat … ?
As the campaign manager for that election, the present Home Secretary no doubt had an input into that speech, so what has happened? Did not the Home Secretary himself say before the election:
Our priority is more police officers on the beat … ?
Is the Home Secretary aware that the Metropolitan police are still working below the safe minimum specified by Sir John Stevens in June this year? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that there are sometimes just 300 police officers patrolling the streets of the entire capital on any one night? Is he also aware that the force is short of more than 800 civilian workers, with the result that 200 front-line officers have been transferred to desk jobs? If the right hon. Gentleman denies these things, he will show himself to be even more out of touch than I previously thought.
Recently, I asked the right hon. Gentleman what assessment he had made of morale in the police service.

Yesterday I received a reply from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South, which stated:
The number of people leaving a profession may be taken as an indicator of morale.—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 65W.]
The hon. Gentleman kindly listed the numbers leaving the service under this Government. Since 1997, the number of voluntary resignations from the police service has risen by almost 500 officers a year. By the Government's admission, morale in the police is lower now than it was in 1997.
So what is the Home Secretary doing? He is increasing the burden on the few patrolling officers he has left. He is asking them to stop a drunk in the street and obtain his name and address—that is, if a drunk carries his name and address. The police are then to ask him to hand over £100. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking the police to do that, he must first provide them with the support that they need by way of more officers and better protection.
The police are in crisis. The Home Secretary once said that the police would have his strong support, but, having been given the chance to act, he has failed to do so. That has been the truth of his stewardship—it has been all spin and no delivery.

Dr. Starkey: Some time ago the right hon. Lady asserted that there is nothing in the Queen's Speech to protect ordinary, law-abiding members of the public. Has she overlooked the private security industry Bill? Is she unaware of the many representations made by members of the public to various Members about their relatives who have been seriously injured by unlicensed door supervisors? Is she aware also of the enormous pressure from the public for the Bill? Does she appreciate the enormous help that it will provide to the public and the police? The regulation of door supervisors is known to cut street crime by up to 75 per cent., which allows the police to direct their efforts elsewhere.

Miss Widdecombe: If there were more police, there would be fewer door supervisor incidents. If there were more police, officers would be able to do their job properly. They would be able to police in a proper fashion. That is at the root of the Opposition's complaint. Many of the Government's measures are ill-conceived and they have not worked. Even those that have some merit will not be successful unless there are sufficient police to implement them.
The word "crisis" seems to follow the Home Secretary. It is surely not too big a word to be applied to the asylum system. Once more, the right hon. Gentleman talks tough, but we are still waiting for effective action to be taken. The National Audit Office report states:
The asylum system is under severe strain.
Despite having been given the chance, the right hon. Gentleman once more fails to act. This year, his supposed flagship legislation was implemented. He argued that it would reduce the number of asylum claims being made by economic migrants. He said that his new voucher system, introduced in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, would
not deter genuine asylum seekers … but it would deter economic migrants.—[Official Report, 27 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 44.]
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to tell the House what effect the legislation has had. Given that the number of asylum applications for


this year has increased and that the percentage of cases refused has remained the same, in what way is the legislation a success?

Mr. Blizzard: Will the right hon. Lady clarify whether it is still her policy to build detention centres to house all asylum seekers who are waiting for their cases to be heard? What is the cost of that policy and from where will she get the money?

Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I will come to exactly that point.
The asylum system even led a ministerial colleague at the Home Office to ask the head of the immigration service to draw up plans to use old Army barracks if there were a sudden influx of asylum seekers over the summer. There are still many more than 6,000 asylum applications being made every month, and there is still a backlog of more than 70,000 claims waiting to be processed. The vast majority—more than 80 per cent. of claims—are still being refused. It does not seem to matter much what the decision is, because few of those whose claim is refused are ever removed—thousands simply disappear into the community. What is the Home Secretary's latest estimate of the number of claimants who have disappeared? Does he even know?
I have proposed a system of reception centres to house claimants and provide them with the service that they need. By contrast, the Home Secretary has relied on a failed system of dispersal, placing burdens on under-prepared local councils and failing to tackle the root of the problem. Often, the greatest sufferer is the genuine asylum seeker. Despite that, the right hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democrats—they are not excused from the charge—attack my policy for being too harsh. So, a policy that is designed to speed up claims and deal with decisions quickly is harsh, while a policy of failure is thought to be better.
Where is the legislation in this Session to deal with the asylum crisis? Is sorting out the asylum system not sufficiently eye-catching for the Prime Minister? Perhaps that is why there is no mention of it in the Queen's Speech. Does the Home Secretary welcome the decision taken by P&O Ferries to employ private officers to check vehicles travelling on its ferries? Is he embarrassed that the company is doing the Government's job for them? If not, that says quite a lot about the Government. The Home Secretary says that
the system must be speeded up.—[Official Report, 27 July 1998; Vol. 317. c. 44.]
Again, all spin and no delivery.
What did Her Majesty's Gracious Speech have to say about dealing with the impending crisis in the prison system?

Mr. Straw: Before the right hon. Lady turns to the impending crisis in prisons, will she answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) about the cost of all the detention centres needed to house approximately 30,000 asylum applicants and the speed with which she would deliver that policy?

Miss Widdecombe: The speed with which it will be delivered will be with all possible speed—[Laughter.]

That is the sensible answer. I have watched the Home Secretary make promise after promise that he has been unable to fulfil, so I only make promises in terms that I know I can fulfil. I can fulfil that and I intend to do so.

Mr. Straw: What about the cost? That is the key question. The right hon. Lady has obviously done all the work, so what is it going to cost?

Miss Widdecombe: Ah, so the key question is not getting the system straightened out; it is what the policy will cost. Now we know what has driven the Home Secretary's approach to the asylum system. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well what the policy would cost because he has done the costings for Oakington. He knows that the policy would not require new build in every case; he knows that the private finance initiative would spread the costs; and he knows that the early projections for Oakington showed a saving against social security costs.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I have now taken four interventions from the Home Secretary; I shall not take a fifth.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but then I shall make at least three pages progress.

Mr. McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend believe that if this country acquires a reputation for dealing quickly and toughly with asylum seekers, fewer people might seek asylum in this country?

Miss Widdecombe: If my hon. Friend is asking whether there are long-term savings to be found, the answer is yes, but that to me is a secondary consideration to getting the system jolly well sorted out and making it fair and effective.
As I was saying, there is nothing in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech to deal with the impending crisis in the prison system. The Home Secretary appeared to admit the crisis when he said that he wanted to intervene before I talked about it. In recent months, we have had the debacle of the raid on Blantyre house, a strike in Brixton, numerous reports from the chief inspector attacking conditions in prisons throughout the country, and the resignation of the governor of Feltham young offenders institution, amid allegations of Dickensian conditions. Yet since 1997, we have heard little from the right hon. Gentleman about the conditions in Britain's prisons. He was only too happy to highlight problems in the prison system before the election, but he has maintained a rather strange silence since.
Prisoners now spend less time each week on purposeful activity than they did under the previous Government. [Interruption.] Apparently, it is a matter for laughter that the number of suicides has increased. Last year, there were 91 self-inflicted deaths in Britain's prisons. By October this year there were already 72, yet there is no mention of any of that in the Government's new measures.



Nothing has been proposed to make prison more purposeful, effective or humane—three aims that I should have thought were shared by all hon. Members.
Perhaps the greatest missed opportunity of the past week has been the chance for the Home Secretary to put an end to his disastrous special early release scheme. I have made no secret of my opposition to the scheme since it began, nor have my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench. When it was put through Parliament, we described it as wrong and we opposed the early release of prisoners under the scheme.
The Government went ahead, however, and, to date, some 27,000 criminals have been released from jail early. Most of those did not serve even half the sentence that they were given by the judge. They include 4,000 drug offenders whose average sentence was 20 months but who on average served eight months; 2,500 burglars whose average sentence was 19 months but who on average served seven-and-a-half months; and approaching 200 people convicted of assaulting police officers and who were given nearly five months but who served only one-and-a-half months. Of the 27,000 released, more than 850 have breached their curfew, with 50 remaining unlawfully at large, and between them they have committed 1,000 more offences, including two rapes.
The Home Secretary said:
We want to send a clear message to violent criminals that they can expect the stiffest penalties if they commit robberies or other street crimes.—[Official Report, 23 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 560.]
Yet he has released more than 1,000 robbers under the scheme on whom the average sentence imposed was 26 months while the average sentence served was 11 months. Apparently, however, they were not serious robbers. According to the right hon. Gentleman, the average sentence for convicted robbers placed on home detention curfew was just over two years. He said that he thought all would agree that that gave an indication of the relative seriousness with which the courts regarded each of the offences in question. Therefore, according to the right hon. Gentleman, if one commits a robbery and, to put it mildly, distresses a victim—one might even do something worse—and that merits a sentence of just over two years, that is not serious.
The right hon. Gentleman constantly tells us that no sex offenders will be released on the scheme, yet three sex offenders have been released. I accept that that was the result of error rather than intention, but it means that the right hon. Gentleman's assurance was not met by action. That is why, however eye-catching the initiatives announced by the right hon. Gentleman, or however popular they appear to be at the time, no one believes any more in his ability to implement them effectively or to see them through properly.
We are delighted that the Government have finally accepted our recommendation to raise the age limit for curfews to 16, but how many crimes does the right hon. Gentleman think have been committed by 10 to 16-year-olds in the past two years? We are also concerned about the ability of an understaffed police force to implement those curfews properly. We are determined that however well the private security industry is regulated, we will not allow it to be used as a substitute for the police service.
We are concerned that the number of car crimes should be reduced, but we do not believe that it is right to increase regulations on law-abiding businesses if those

regulations will not be effective. First and foremost, we believe that releasing nearly 300 car thieves from jail early is no way to reduce the number of offences. The Government have said that they intend to tackle anti-social behaviour, but releasing from jail early more than 700 people guilty of assault, more than 300 people guilty of violent offences and 100 offenders guilty of drunkenness has done nothing to help.
Crime is rife in our inner cities. The chairman of the Police Federation said:
there is a sense of disorder, and anarchy in many inner city areas. Most people would avoid these hot spots altogether, as there are no police officers to turn to.
Until the number of police officers increases, that will continue to be the case. We must tackle the conditions of poverty and need which drive much of that crime. The Government have not done anything to tackle those causes, despite their continued promises. The programme set out by the Home Secretary is one of missed opportunities. It contains nothing to reverse last year's rise in crime; nothing to increase the number of police officers in England and Wales; nothing to enhance the rights of victims in the justice system; nothing to protect the law-abiding householder; and nothing to end the lunacy of a policy that sends dangerous criminals out on to the streets extra early. There is a space for a Bill restricting the right to justice, but no time for a Bill to make prisons purposeful or sentencing more transparent.
It is now clearer than ever that the Government's pre-election promises were nothing more than spin. Since 1997, we have had nothing but fudge and failure. The Home Secretary spun, "I will tackle anti-social behaviour." Three years later, nothing has happened. He said, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", but he has been tough only on crime fighters and victims. The programme before us seeks to put right all the failure of the previous three years, but the people of this country now know that the only way to reverse the Government's failure is to reverse their position. That is why they will not be the Government after the next election.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss the Government's record on crime. In her closing remarks, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made a slip, for which we should forgive her. She said that I was seeking to put right the failures of a previous Government. I am sure, however, that she was referring to the failure of the previous 18 years of Conservative Government.
Our record speaks for itself, not least when compared with that of the Conservative Government. In their first three years, crime rose by 20 per cent. In the first three years of the Administration of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), it rose by 40 per cent. In the first three years of the current Administration, it fell by 10 per cent. The Opposition cannot gainsay those figures because they do not happen to like the truth. The figures come from the British crime survey, which was established by the previous Administration in 1981 as the single most authoritative survey of overall levels of crime—recorded, reported and unrecorded—in the country.
The president of the Association of Chief Police Officers said that
the Survey undoubtedly provides the best indicator that levels of crime are showing a reduction.
He also said:
The latest British Crime Survey is excellent news.
I look forward to the right hon. Lady coming to the Dispatch Box to welcome that good news.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that that decrease applies to 1997–98 and not to the current period? Will he further admit that his figures—not ours—show that crime rose last year?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady is wrong in her first point. The survey compares the two years 1997 and 1999. The sample published in October covered 1999. The only difference from the recorded crime figures is that the British crime survey charts all crime reported by individuals to the surveyors, rather than merely that which is reported at the time to the police.
I do not mind if the right hon. Lady wants to trade recorded crime figures. As I said, they show that crime rose by 20 per cent. between 1979 and 1982, in the first three and a half years of the Conservative Administration. In the first three years of the Major Administration, it rose by 40 per cent. In the first three years of the current Administration, it will have risen by 7 per cent. However, the British crime survey shows a 21 per cent. reduction in burglary, a 15 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime and a 4 per cent. reduction in violent crime. Moreover, the right hon. Lady seeks to create, almost out of nothing, the suggestion that there is some crisis in law and order. Crime is too high but, thanks to the measures that we have put in place during the past three and a half years, it is coming under control. We should compare that with the situation over which she and her colleagues presided, when crime was out of control.
Other evidence shows that people feel safer. The English housing survey, which was published just two weeks ago, involved a huge sample. It was established, I believe, under the previous Administration. Respondents were asked whether they thought that crime was a serious problem in their neighbourhood. Again, we should compare the figures, which in this case are for 1997–98 to 1999–2000—they are up to date. The number of people in a neighbourhood who thought that crime was a serious problem dropped by a third in those two years. In some areas, the drop was more than half. The reason for that is that the measures that we put in place are working, as I shall explain.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Does the Home Secretary understand that my constituents and, I suspect, those of most other hon. Members do not live their lives comparing this survey with that survey or this crime figure with that crime figure? Their daily lives and daily experiences are entirely different from that. Will he please address the concerns of our fellow citizens? The Queen's Speech and his approach to it are entirely erroneous and completely outside our daily experience.

Mr. Straw: Of course we have to deal with the figures. Indeed, any Opposition seek to dine out on figures, and I

do not particularly blame them. However, the Opposition try to avoid the point when the figures show the reverse of what they assert. Of course I am aware that concern about crime and disorder is still far too high. How could I not be aware of that as one who seeks to be assiduous in representing his constituents? It will take us some years before we get levels of crime and disorder back to those when Labour was last in office during the 1970s, although I certainly shall not rest there either, when they are at half the current level. The measures that we are putting in place are working.
On the question of whether we will help victims, who is saying that a persistent criminal who has been charged with the theft of a Mars bar or a can of Tennents lager should have the automatic right to claim trial by jury? People like the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). Who is saying that that right should be exercised by the courts, on the merits of the case, which would bring us into line with every other sensible jurisdiction? The police, the Magistrates Association and a great many victims of crime, who have suffered from the way in which persistent criminals have run the criminal justice system that the hon. and learned Gentleman supports absolutely ragged.

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose—

Mr. Straw: I give way to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell).

Sir Nicholas Lyell: On the Home Secretary's point about the jury trial Bill, he is aware, and will he kindly acknowledge, that the Bill's drafting will not allow the courts to look, one way or the other, at the reputation of the person seeking jury trial?

Mr. Straw: We could have a debate on the Bill's exact drafting. We could also discuss whether the precise recommendations of the royal commission back in 1993 are the most appropriate or whether those that I inserted in the Bill are preferable. I did so on reflection because of the concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the royal commission's proposals could have been discriminatory where the circumstances of the defendant—including, for example, the colour of his or her skin—might be taken into account. However, the starting point for that discussion must be an agreement that the current arrangement is simply unacceptable and needs to be changed.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
The truth, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire knows, is that he opposes any change. No matter how much we changed the Bill's wording, he would still believe that the persistent petty


criminal who steals a Mars bar or a can of Tennents lager has a right to claim jury trial, whatever the inconvenience to the police, magistrates and, above all, victims.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Mr. Humfrey Malins: rose—

Mr. Straw: I give way to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.

Miss Widdecombe: If the case is so utterly compelling, why did the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and Lord Williams of Mostyn oppose the reform until a few months before the Home Secretary introduced the provisions for the first time?

Mr. Straw: I shall answer the question if the right hon. Lady will stop whining and just listen for a change. By God, as I listened to her going on about early release, I prayed for that facility to be made available to hon. Members, condemned as we are week by week to listen to her speeches.
As it happens, this matter came up in the House once in the previous Parliament. It was not an election issue. I am perfectly prepared to say, as I said years ago, that on reflection and having looked further at the evidence I changed my mind. I am willing to acknowledge that. The more I considered the issue, the more I came to the view that changing the law to bring it into line with what happens in Scotland and almost every other jurisdiction is sensible and just, especially to the victims but also to defendants.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary knows that my colleagues and I will oppose the proposed abolition of anyone's right to choose jury trial as strongly in this Session as we did in the last. He selected five Home Office Bills as part of a programme of only 15 Bills—the Hunting Bill and four others. He is determined to reduce crime. Do objective figures show that the abolition of the right to choose jury trial will significantly reduce crime or increase the number of guilty people being properly convicted? Where is the objective evidence, because the rhetoric of the past three years has so far not revealed it?

Mr. Straw: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question in detail, but in coming to this issue he can properly claim to be a member of the liberal establishment, which was so roundly condemned by the Leader of the Opposition in a speech earlier this year. It is astonishing that the only people whom the Opposition now pray in aid in support of their position on the mode of trial Bill are members of the liberal establishment—not only the Liberal Democrats, but the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, the Law Society and, I do not mind saying, the Society of Labour Lawyers, which has a view with which we happen to disagree. At least we have the courage of our convictions.

Mr. Matins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I will not. I shall make some progress. I must answer the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
It is our strong belief that, under the current mode of trial system, many defendants who are almost certainly guilty never get to trial. As anyone who is familiar with the magistrates courts or the Crown court knows, the offences involved are typically regarded as too trivial for the Crown court. Many Crown court judges have written to me to assert that point. Such cases often drop off the list or a bind-over is accepted at Crown court.
As we are talking about a change for the future, it is difficult to calculate with any precision how many more defendants are likely to be convicted. On the best judgment available, I contend that more defendants who are guilty would be convicted and would probably plead guilty at an earlier stage, to the huge convenience of victims. There is no evidence to suggest that magistrates are less capable than the Crown court of coming to a just decision on relatively simple issues.

Mr. Malins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I shall make some progress.
At the general election, we wrote our manifesto against the background of a doubling of crime under the Conservative party. We are now delivering on the commitments that we made. We were committed to a root-and-branch reform of the youth justice system, which the previous Administration had left in decay. We promised to halve, within five years, the time that it takes to get persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence. When he was Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) described that as undeliverable, yet we have already reduced the average time by seven weeks and we are on target to meet that promise.
We promised to replace repeat cautions with a single final warning, to establish youth offending teams, to streamline youth courts and to create new parenting orders. All those measures are working successfully.

Mr. Malins: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I want to make some progress, but I will give way later.
We promised to decentralise the Crown Prosecution Service. The previous Government introduced a fundamentally flawed CPS system in 1985. We promised to provide tougher punishment for repeat violent and sex offenders, and greater protection for victims and witnesses in court. All those things have been done.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked me about victims. Since we took office, the grant to the victim support scheme has increased by 50 per cent. and there are now witness services in all Crown courts, as there will shortly be in all magistrates courts. That is what we are doing for victims. We are not just talking about victims; we are acting on their behalf. Victims impact statements will be introduced next year. The latest report from the British crime survey indicates that victimisation levels are at their lowest since 1983.
We promised to get tough on anti-social behaviour and to introduce anti-social behaviour orders. More than 140 are in place and, with the support of police and councils, are working well. Many more are in the pipeline. Police officers have told me that in, for example, the London borough of Islington—I could cite many other



examples—the mere prospect of the seeking of an ASBO has greatly strengthened their hand, and that of the local authority, when they are dealing with the scourge of anti-social behaviour.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The clerk to the justices at Banbury has told the local superintendent of police and the chief executive of the district council that, unless an ASBO is applied for in respect of a persistent offender, his advice to the justices is that they should not grant it, as that would be in breach of the human rights legislation. As a consequence, not a single ASBO has been applied for or granted in north Oxfordshire. I merely ask the Home Secretary and his officials to investigate why clerks to the justices, who I am sure seek to do an honourable job, seem to be so confused by guidance that I suspect was issued by the Home Office.

Mr. Straw: I apologise for not being familiar with the magistrates in north Oxfordshire on a personal level, but it seems that they have misdirected themselves. The advice is clear. I believe that the Lord Chief Justice delivered a judgment only last week or the week before, the details of which I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman. The court, quite properly, concluded that the procedure for obtaining an ASBO was a civil procedure, and was not affected by the claims made by the applicants—in respect of article 6 of the European convention on human rights—that it was a criminal procedure.
I suggest that the clerks to the justices and the police and local authorities look carefully at the protocol on application for ASBOs, which we drew up—or others drew up on our behalf—very carefully with the Justices Clerks Society, the Magistrates Association and others. That protocol is being applied very helpfully.
By definition, a new order means that people must do things that they have not done before; but where ASBOs are being used, they are being used successfully. They have certainly been used successfully in my constituency, and in Preston, where three have been made, they have helped to reduce crime and persistent disorder to an extent that earlier measures did not achieve.
There was another promise in our manifesto—interestingly, not a word was said about it—that we said we would implement, and we have done so. We promised to create new offences of racial harassment and racially motivated violence. To their great shame, the Conservatives rejected those proposals in government; they specifically voted them down. Yet, after all their mocking of child curfews—I could parry that by citing any number of measures to deal with offences created when the right hon. Lady and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) were in office, which have not been used at all—the new offences of racial harassment and racially motivated violence had led to 921 convictions by the end of last year alone. They have been hugely important in ensuring that, at last, we give members of the black and Asian communities some confidence that, where they are subject to vile crimes of racial harassment and racially motivated violence, they can get redress.
The right hon. Lady points to an increase of 190,000 in the number of recorded offences. Included in that number are quite a number of offences of racially motivated

violence and domestic violence. We want the number of such offences that are recorded and reported to the police to go not down, but up. However, we want the overall level of violence to go down. The British crime survey shows exactly that.
We promised tough action on drugs through new drug treatment and testing orders, which again were dismissed by the previous Administration. They are now in place. The number of prisoners testing positive for drugs has almost halved from about a quarter in 1996–97 to 12.5 per cent. this October.
One reason why the programme—yes, crime and disorder is still too high—is working is that we are tackling not only crime and disorder itself but something that the Conservatives did not even understand, still less deal with: the causes of crime. We are taking action to deal with the immediate and the underlying causes of crime. We are dealing with the immediate causes of crime through our crime reduction programme and the new deal, which, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer often said when we were in opposition, is as much an anti-crime policy as it is an economic policy. That has helped to halve long-term unemployment among the young.
If we want to stop someone offending it is critical that we provide that person with the prospect of a job at some speed. The right hon. Lady witters on about prisons. I do not think that she wants to go too much into her record on prisons. Otherwise, I will remind her of her complacency when pregnant women prisoners were chained to radiators. I remember, too, in early 1996, her wriggling for two weeks trying to defend the indefensible. Her right hon. and learned so-called Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe had to come to the House to bail her out of that huge embarrassment.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember the ending of slopping out? Will he remember that purposeful activity rose to a peak under the previous Government and has been declining ever since under his Government? Will he confirm that slopping out has returned in some prisons, that the suicide rate has risen and that purposeful activity has declined? His record is generally one of complete shame on that issue.

Mr. Straw: I think that the right hon. Lady was a bit hyperbolic at the end, but, on the implementation of the Woolf recommendations, which go back to Lord Hurd, progress was made when she was at the Home Office, but she is remembered distinctively not for progress on the Woolf reforms but for, in a completely bone-headed way, seeking to defend the indefensible and allowing pregnant women prisoners to be chained to radiators. Instead of saying that that was a disgrace, she came to the House to defend it.
What we are doing, which the right hon. Lady failed to tackle, is to ensure that prisoners are properly educated. Three quarters of prisoners are educated to below level 2. They cannot get 95 per cent. of jobs, which require a basic minimum of education. We are putting that education in—

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I will in a second.
We are ensuring under the new deal, which the Conservatives deride at every opportunity, that appropriate prisoners can secure jobs for when they leave prison, so that they do not face the terrifying situation of going through the gate, going back to old haunts and to persistent offending.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I will not for a moment.

Miss Widdecombe: I bet the right hon. Gentleman will not.

Mr. Straw: I will give way to the right hon. Lady again at least four times.
In addition, the sure start programme and the working families tax credit are providing much greater support for children of low-income families. The new deal for communities is targeting the areas of greatest social dislocation and crime. It is ensuring—I am sorry that it did not happen in the past—that money is properly spent to improve behaviour in those areas, as well as the physical environment.
As we agreed when we debated the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 just before Dissolution, the whole House and the country have been profoundly shocked by the savage death of young Damilola Taylor, and our hearts go out to his family and community. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has assured me that no effort will be spared in bringing his killers to justice. We hope and pray that their huge efforts are successful.
I echo the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that, in recent years, north Peckham had been making tentative steps towards its revival. It is extremely important for that community, and for the parents and children in that community whom I have met, that the progress of the past three years in not set back by the tragedy. Indeed, our resolve to make the area better is all the stronger.
In the past three and a half years, we have made a good start—but it is only a start. Ours is a strategy for the long term, and fundamental to it are two key factors—investment and reform. Investment in policing and crime fighting will increase by more than 20 per cent. in cash—which is almost 12 per cent. in real terms—in the next three years, with a 7 per cent. real increase in spending next year alone. That is the highest annual increase for 15 years, with targeted resources going on recruitment and technology. We are also investing record sums in closed circuit television schemes, crime reduction projects and projects aimed at tackling issues as varied as domestic violence, crack cocaine dealers and racial crime.

Mr. Llwyd: Given the crime survey figures that the Home Secretary mentioned and what he described as the successes of the new deal, why is it such a priority to deal with the so-called yob culture now?

Mr. Straw: We have to deal with crime in whatever form it occurs. In Cardiff, in the hon. Gentleman's own Principality, there is a very good example, on which we are drawing, of how excellent co-operation between police, the city council and the accident and emergency

department led by the eminent Professor John Shepherd is working to reduce violent and alcohol-related crime. Why is it important to do that? A majority of people who go out on a Friday or a Saturday night, or on any other day of the week, have a right to be able to enjoy themselves peacefully and without being assaulted or abused by others who are drunk or worse.
It is important to do that because—this is our argument about anti-social behaviour generally—if we fail to check allegedly low-level disorder, such people get out of control in their own minds and graduate from having a pop at someone to breaking a beer glass on their heel and smashing it into someone's face. If they think that they can get away with such behaviour, they might start to think that, generally, that is the best way of resolving conflict and enriching themselves. Therefore, dealing with allegedly lower-level disorderly crime is a very important way of cutting off the graduation route between such people and higher-level organised crime. I do not see any direct contradiction—indeed, there is none—between what we are doing to deal with such behaviour and what we are doing at the more serious end of crime.
Three years ago, evidence was produced showing that, unfortunately, compared with otherwise similar low-income estates, disorderly estates on which there were higher levels of graffiti and litter and a greater sense of abuse had higher crime levels. If we nip lower-level offending in the bud, we can stop offending entirely.

Mr. Michael: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has referred to the success of the project in Cardiff. Obviously, the situation varies from area to area, and the needs of each area have to be considered. However, will he invite hon. Members on both sides of the House to urge health authorities, police and local authorities in their constituencies to learn the lessons of the Cardiff project and to learn that it is possible to reduce the amount of violent crime that damages victims?

Mr. Straw: Yes. In doing so, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who piloted the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 through the House. One of the central provisions of that Act—section 17—requires not only police and the local council but all the other authorities, including the health authority, to work together. The truth is that, in some areas, health authorities are working effectively together, but in others they are not. They should follow Cardiff s example. Professor Shepherd and his colleagues have shown that by co-operating with the other partners in the area to reduce alcohol-related and violent crime, health authorities can save the staff in the NHS and the NHS budget a huge amount.
Tied to our programme of investment is reform. The legislation to be introduced this Session will further help the police and their partners to use those extra resources most effectively. The two key strands of investment and reform mark out the choice on law and order between a Government who are delivering and a Conservative party trapped by its own contradictions.
We are also combining investment and reform in immigration and asylum matters. We inherited a legacy in which investment had been cut, the number of immigration service staff, astonishingly, had been cut and London and Kent local authorities were faced with an unbearable burden of asylum seekers. It was taking 20 months, on average, for an asylum decision and appeal to be determined.
We are putting additional resources into the system and reforming it. For many years, only 30,000 to 35,000 decisions were made. In this calendar year, 100,000 decisions will be made and the target for the financial year is 150,000. Families with children are already being dealt with inside the two months plus four months target, and we are aiming to reach that target for all other applicants by the middle of next year. Some 4,000 additional staff are being taken on to improve caseworking still further and to ensure that we secure more removals.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked where the asylum and immigration legislation was. She is not interested in the answer, which is that we are setting out to implement the comprehensive Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
The real question is, what would be in the right hon. Lady's Bill? Throughout the progress of the 1999 Act, only two measures were challenged. One was the ending of cash benefits, which was a huge pull factor for port applicants. We said that cash benefits had to go and would be replaced with a national asylum support system, based mainly on the provision of support in kind. The right hon. Lady's party voted against that, so I assume that clause 1 of its proposed Bill on asylum would be the restoration of cash benefits at ports, with the consequential increase of £500 million as well as a significant increase in the numbers of unfounded claims by asylum applicants attracted to this country.
The other matter that the Conservative party voted against throughout the Act's proceedings was the civil penalty on lorry drivers carrying clandestine immigrants. If there is one measure in the Act that has made a difference and ensured a real tightening of security, not only by the immigration service but by those carrying and ferrying such clandestines, it has been the imposition of a civil penalty. Why does the right hon. Lady think that P&O suddenly decided to employ security guards? It is because, under principles of civil penalty established in 1987 by the previous Administration and taken on by us—but as the Conservatives have no memory, they have forgotten that—P&O, along with other carriers, faces the prospect of a substantial bill if clandestines are carried on its ferries. It has decided, sensibly, to tighten its security. Otherwise, hauliers might vote with their feet and go to more secure ports.
Why, at long last, has the port of Calais decided to tighten perimeter security? The answer is that it realised that under the threat of the civil penalty it would lose trade—indeed, it was losing trade—to other, more secure, ports. This measure has worked.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Straw: Of course I will give way to the right hon. Lady. I need to hear from her whether her proposed Bill would at least be consistent with what she said before, restoring cash benefits and repealing the provisions for the civil penalty. What is her answer?

Miss Widdecombe: I am asking the questions, because I am intervening on the right hon. Gentleman. A man in Kent reported to the police that he believed that he had

clandestine entrants in his load. He co-operated with the police who, when they found clandestine entrants, fined him £14,000 and drove him out of business. What would the right hon. Gentleman say to that man?

Mr. Straw: The answer is straightforward: there is an appeals process, and we do not seek to operate the civil penalty system unfairly. The person has a right of appeal—end of story, and the right hon. Lady should know that.
If right hon. Lady would like to, she could tell me what else would be in her proposal. She could provide more details on locking up all asylum seekers, but she refuses to do so. I asked her several questions about where the money would come from, and she said we knew the figures. I shall give her the figures; she is happy to rely on them. The cost of providing at least 60 detention centres to house 30,000 asylum seekers is £2 billion. She could get that money on hire purchase, through the private finance initiative, but would have to pay a little more. The cost of running those centres is £1 billion.
The right hon. Lady may say that the time scale does not really matter, but it will take years to establish the centres, not least because in Kent, where we are trying to establish one detention centre at Aldington, Conservative-dominated Ashford district council opposes its establishment, as does the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)—a Conservative. Furthermore, the local Conservative parish councillor is so offended by the idea that there might be asylum seekers—albeit, locked up—in his back yard that he has pleaded that it offends his rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, and has succeeded in gaining an adjournment of the planning inquiry.

Mr. John Bercow: I told the right hon. Gentleman that that Act was not a good idea.

Mr. Straw: I admit that we did not expect that the Act would be used in those circumstances, and we look forward to the courts regarding the case as entirely vexatious and worthless. It is interesting that, although Conservative Members talk in general about establishing detention centres, they fight every proposal to establish them. They know that that is a promise full of deception; they cannot deliver it. They have neither the money nor the will to do so.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: May I tempt the Home Secretary back to the Government's policy for a moment? What is his estimate, since the previous Queen's Speech, of the number of people who have been told to leave the country at the end of their appeal process but are still here for one reason or another?

Mr. Straw: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is the same as the one that he would have given had he been in my position—we can only estimate the number of people who are in the country wholly illegally. Perhaps this will be in the Conservative proposal, but unless we introduce compulsory identification cards for everyone who is lawfully resident in this country and provide the police with the power to stop individuals and ask them to produce their identification cards, and to


arrest them if they do not have one, we shall remain in the area of estimates. We are putting vast resources into increasing the number of removals.

Mr. Bercow: What is the number?

Mr. Straw: The number of removals is already higher. Before Conservative Members start trading figures about other countries, I should say that, for example, in Germany—often cited as a paradigm—the numbers are rising; it has 500,000 rejected asylum seekers whose addresses are known because they still claim benefit, whereas at least in this country, when asylum seekers lose all entitlement to be here, their entitlement to benefit is also, quite properly, removed.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I want to make progress.

Miss Widdecombe: What is the estimate? The right hon. Gentleman will not tell us. Will he confirm that if everyone was housed in secure reception centres and not merely allowed to disappear, he would not need identity cards and would have a much more efficient system? Will he also confirm that the costs that he has mentioned, first, include unused capacity; secondly, make no allowance for deterrence; thirdly, make no allowance for the changes in decision making; and fourthly, include the costs of case-working staff, whom he would have to employ anyway in centres or in the community? When he has added all that lot up and taken into account the fact that new build is not necessary and that PFI can work perfectly well, will he not admit that our proposal will save money in the end and produce a more efficient system?

Mr. Straw: The prolixity of that question shows that the Conservative's have no real proposal; it is simply intended for the headlines. Our estimate takes account of the fact that there is no unused capacity in RAF stations or former mental hospitals. We have scoured the country to find places, such as Aldington, and when we have the whole of the local Conservative establishment has opposed our proposal. They would continue to do so if—God forbid—the right hon. Lady were doing my job. Our estimates are based on very slow progress.
The right hon. Lady suggests that we should lock up all asylum seekers, but let us be clear that the proposal includes not only healthy, single, adult males but those who are unhealthy and every woman and child. They would have to abandon any bail provision, which would break various aspects of the 1951 convention. In my more rash moments, I look forward to her doing that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Straw: Let me make progress, because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
Where we have promised investment and reform, the shadow Chancellor promises cuts. Where we have introduced proposals for reform, the Conservatives promise only outdated and discredited ideas, with their very dismal record still fresh in the memory. The Conservative party calls for more police, yet suggests that

we are spending too much on the police; it described our plans as "reckless". The shadow Chancellor refused to match our promises on the police, confounding what the right hon. Lady says.
I know only too well that opposition is not a happy place. Indeed, we can all judge that from the right hon. Lady's composure today. The Labour party learned the hard way that, to be taken seriously as a Government, it is necessary to have policies and spending plans that stand up to scrutiny, but after three and a half years in opposition the Conservative party does not have even the beginnings of a coherent set of proposals on law and order.
Let us consider a proposal that was made a huge example of at the Conservative party conference, but about which the right hon. Lady has been surprisingly reticent. Indeed, when she was asked about it last week, she said that she would not rehash the arguments. There was a headline-grabbing policy at the party conference. She tried to pull a rabbit out of the hat, but all she got was a harebrained scheme—a policy so off the wall that it was immediately discredited by the police, with her shadow Cabinet colleagues salivating at the prospect of going on television to denounce her.
The right hon. Lady's deputy, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), joined the queue entirely gratuitously some time later. In an interview that he gave to the New Statesman, he said:
The idea that the police should raid every home in the land looking for dope smokers is transparently absurd. Personal use has effectively been decriminalised. A vast clampdown is unrealistic.
That represents a vast dumping on his own apparent boss. That fiasco was not simply embarrassing but catastrophic for the right hon. Lady and her party because it exposed, as never before, the policy-making chaos at the heart of the Conservative party, and it is the same story on police numbers.
Overall police numbers have declined since 1993, but we are taking effective steps to increase them again. The last people who should criticise us about police numbers are Conservative Members. When they were in government, numbers fell by 1,500, despite the right hon. Lady's promises, made from this very Dispatch Box, to increase them by 5,000. As I have said, they described our spending on the police from 1999 as "reckless". Most crucially, the shadow Chancellor is now saying not that they would increase spending, but that there would be savings in every part of the Home Office budget, apart from that relating to asylum. It is, perhaps, a mark of the regard in which the right hon. Lady is held by her colleagues, especially the shadow Chancellor, that every time she has asked about additional spending today, she has been forced to waffle and bluster.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment. The right hon. Lady has dined out on her reputation for straight talking. I shall give the House an example. Asked whether she would match our spending on policing, she said this on the radio:
We might wish to spend in a different way. Sorry, I am just not going to say Yes or No to that. I think that is not a valid question at this stage.


Not a valid question? What an extraordinary state of affairs. It is apparently valid for her to assert that police numbers would rise if she took office, but invalid for anyone to ask her how she would pay for that. It is valid for her to trumpet her ends, yet invalid for her to be asked to explain the means.

Miss Widdecombe: As the right hon. Gentleman is complaining about not getting answers to questions, will he please answer the very clear question that I put to him some time ago? He may have thought that he had escaped it. Is it not a fact that slopping out is back? Is it not a fact that suicide rates are up? Is it not a fact that self-harm in prisons has increased? Is it not a fact that assaults and long-term staff sickness have increased? Is it not a fact that purposeful activity has decreased? Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary has made a total mess of his prison system? Will he now answer those questions? As he is calling for answers, let him do some answering.

Mr. Straw: God save us! Let me out of here, please, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It gets worse and worse.
I regard it as reprehensible of the right hon. Lady to make party political capital out of the number of suicides in prison. She understands the circumstances in which prisoners take their lives. She knows that we are working with the Prison Service as hard as, if not harder than, her Administration did to deal with this problem. The idea that she should try to trade insults about it is utterly beneath contempt.
I return to the issue of police numbers. As a result of our crime fighting fund, the number of officers joining the police service now exceeds the number leaving it. Wastage in the police service, despite all the myths that one reads in the newspapers, is about half the level in the public services generally, and way below the levels in the private sector. On overall wastage in the police service, as the answer given by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), has shown, retirements and resignations have decreased in recent years to less than 5 per cent.
The police training colleges are full, and extra money has been provided to boost the pay of post-1994 officers in the Metropolitan police. We have set aside funds to ensure that forces recruit up to 9,000 more officers than they had previously planned to recruit, to bring overall numbers to record levels by 2003–04. The police service is not in crisis. Were it in crisis, crime and disorder levels would not have come down in the way that they have done over the past three years.
A sensible Opposition would recognise that the issue is not only about overall numbers—although I want to see those numbers going up—but about how effectively existing police numbers are used. The shift in police numbers has been marginal: about 2 per cent. There are 125,000 police officers, and nearly 60,000 civilians working in support of them. An even more crucial issue than whether there are 125,000 or 126,000 officers is that of how effectively each of those of officers is used, led and managed. That is what we have been doing.
We have provided the police with the powers to deal with inefficiency—which needs to be exposed in the police service—with unacceptable levels of early

retirement and sickness. As a result of our bearing down on sickness, the equivalent of 700 officers have been added back to operational ranks. We are cutting by one third the number of forms that officers have to process, as we said that we would when we were in opposition. While the Conservative party waffles about red tape, we are getting on with cutting it.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a second.
Another way in which we are making the police service more effective is by ensuring that it serves the whole of our community: black and Asian people as well as white. The police are fully engaged in implementing the recommendations of the Lawrence inquiry. When that report was published, all parties in the House welcomed its recommendations. However, in his speech on the police last Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition accused us not only of having
tied their hands with red tape
but of
political correctness.—[Official Report, 6 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 19.]
I listened to that with great interest. I have dealt with the issue of red tape, but what can the right hon. Gentleman have been talking about when he used that grubby euphemism, "political correctness", unless he was talking about the joint efforts of the police and the communities, backed by the Government, to ensure that the police work in partnership with all communities? I think that he had that in mind, but he did not have the guts to say it. The police working in partnership with all communities is at the heart of what we are doing.

Mr. Howarth: I should like to take the Home Secretary back to the point about police numbers. He made the extraordinary claim that the number of police will go up by about 9.000 by 2003, yet he told me at a meeting of the Select Committee on Home Affairs the other day that the latest figures showed that there were 2,700 fewer police officers, up to March this year. He told me that, since March, the numbers had fallen by a further 200. Is he now telling the House that the turnaround in recruitment and retention is such that the numbers have dramatically increased since he gave us the figures in September?

Mr. Straw: I should like to think that the hon. Gentleman is too intelligent for that question. He knows the answer-9,000 additional recruits. I gave the figures, but the happy news is that, when I was at the Home Affairs Committee three weeks ago, I gave provisional figures that the numbers in September were down by 200. In fact, they are down by only seven. The best estimates for the latest weeks is that the numbers are now starting to rise.
Our crucial idea of partnership, and getting everyone involved in reducing crime, lies at the heart of the five Bills that we announced last week. They will give greater powers to the police, extend the modernisation of our criminal justice system, and bear down on those who threaten society, including those who use anti-social


behaviour. We introduced five Bills and a draft Bill. They include the Private Security Industry Bill, which will, at last, provide for the regulation of the private security industry in England and Wales—again, something that the previous Government could have done but failed to do.
The Vehicles (Crime) Bill will ensure that we are able to meet our target of cutting vehicle crime by one third over a five-year period, and build on the great success of the police and local authorities in reducing vehicle crime over the past four years. It will also ensure that much of the income from speed camera fines can be reinvested to improve road safety.
We come to the issue of targeting the profits of crime. Too often, when criminals are caught, they hang on to their ill-gotten gains and emerge from prison to enjoy their fast cars and large houses. That defeats justice and presents a damaging role model for young people. The draft Bill on the proceeds of crime will set out proposals for levelling the playing field. Measures were introduced in the previous Parliament, but they have not worked as effectively as they should have done, or as effectively as similar measures in the United States and Ireland. That is why we are introducing the proposals.
The police and the courts cannot operate with one hand tied behind their backs. Too often, they have been unable to deal properly with disorder and other criminal behaviour. Too often, they have been prevented from hitting back at the criminals who make life a misery for so many. The legislation that I have outlined today will give the police and the courts the powers that they need to ensure that justice is done. We have achieved a great deal in the past three and a half years, but crime and disorder levels are still too high. There remains a great deal to be done. The measures in the Gracious Speech continue our programme to make the country safer and more secure, and I commend them and the Gracious Speech to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Between 9 o'clock and midnight last night, I was out with a crew from the London ambulance service. The first call was to a cardiac arrest of a three-year-old in Walworth, which is in my borough of Southwark. Thanks to the skill and extreme professionalism of the crew, they managed to get to the child in time—by a matter of minutes—to prevent him from dying, which he was at a high risk of doing, and to take him to St. Thomas's hospital, where he soon recovered. I spent the rest of the evening with the crew and they explained to me that the ambulance service is often so overstretched that they cannot even get to people who are at high health risk.
People who work on our behalf to protect law and order have the same problem but with victims of crime. Yesterday morning, I was in the office of the borough commander in Southwark, whose police officers the Home Secretary has rightly particularly commended for their work in the past few weeks. The commander made the point that although he and his colleagues are absolutely committed to what they do—they have allocated 50 officers to try to find out who killed Damilola Taylor—they have staffing problems. They are 48 officers short of the establishment of 807 officers, and 23 people

short of the civilian establishment of 220. Officers are owed 3,800 days leave that they have not been able to take because they have been working to do the job that is required of them.
None the less, the force has charged people for 17 of the 19 murders in Southwark in the past three years. Only a recent killing and that of Damilola Taylor have not so far resulted in an arrest. The police force is in some ways highly successful, but it has no more than the capacity, with difficulty, to respond to immediate pressures. It cannot do the job that it would like to do to protect people, and to provide the law and order strategy and support that the community needs.
The Home Secretary is right to focus on the first Home Office aim:
Reduction in crime, particularly in youth crime, and in the fear of crime, and the maintenance of public safety and good order.
We want a more orderly society for the good of everyone. In Southwark this morning, we were shown an extremely good initiative to achieve that end. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis were present. The intention was to target hate crimes in Southwark by fully involving young people, the local authority and the relevant partners and agencies.
The launch made it clear, as did the borough commander in Southwark yesterday and every police officer to whom I have spoken, that there are no simple causes of crime and no simple solutions. As the Minister of State said this morning, we need sustainable, long-term strategies. The hate crime initiative is such a strategy. If there are no easy explanations and solutions, the Queen's Speech needs to contain policies that are proven to work effectively and have a sound base. We do not need measures that are appealing baubles to be put in a political shop window but which, although superficially attractive, are not worth much when one looks at them closely.
The great feeling that there is particular evil and malaise in our society is in some ways misguided. Of course there is a huge amount of crime, but there is nothing new about crimes with knives and weapons. The streets were just as unsafe 100 years ago in that respect. When I first started work with youngsters in Southwark, kids often carried knives. [HoN. MEMBERS: "A 100 years ago?"] That was not 100 years ago, but in the 1970s. Kids have not started to carry knives just in the past few years. Alcohol has also caused crime throughout the last century, and there is probably no great difference between its impact today and its impact 100 years ago
Having said all that, there is one difference today, and that is drugs, which are now more likely to motivate people to commit crime and to make them unaware of the harmful consequences of their behaviour. I agree with Ministers: the escalation and spread of harmful drugs in our communities need to be tackled. Drugs cause a huge amount of crime and misery, and create many more victims. They not only make victims of the people who take them, but affect many more people through drug-related crime.
We often hear a litany in debates such as these in which we compare the records of the Tories 18 years in government and Labour's three and a half years in government. We would expect attacks on the Tories and their credibility to be obvious. However, it is difficult for a party to attack with credibility another Government's


record on crime when that party was in government for 18 years and crime doubled, when violent crime increased every year during those 18 years, and when convictions fell so greatly during the same period.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has a duty, as I have, to provide an opposition, but she has to remember to be humble about the failures of her party, too. Up until 1992—before she was a Minister—the number of police officers increased, but they decreased in the following five years, when she was in government. The two pledges by the then Prime Minister to recruit 5,000 extra police were not delivered. Indeed, over that period, there were nearly 500 fewer police. A little gentle humility, which the right hon. Lady's faith and mine enjoin us to adopt, would be welcome.
As for the Government, we are three and a half years into their term and there is a rumour in the air that this Parliament might last for only four years. The Queen's Speech is so thin that, even with the five Home Office Bills, it does not look as though the Session could last much beyond May even if we tried hard to prolong it. According to the figures, crime fell in the first period of the Government's term, although it now seems to be rising. Violent crime has unarguably increased. [Interruption.] I shall be happy to let the Home Secretary respond in a moment, but the figures are not straightforward. It is not clear that crime is decreasing. Offences of violence increased by 16 per cent. in the past year according to British crime survey and other independent figures.
However, where the Government stand most indicted—no matter how much they try to hide it—is on the issue of police numbers. I tabled a question as quickly as I could when the House resumed after the Queen's speech:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in each police force and in total at the end of September; and what was the total in March 1997.
It was interesting, to put it neutrally, to see the answer. The Minister of State replied:>
Information about the number of police officers at the end of September 2000 is being prepared and will be published shortly in a Home Office Statistical Bulletin.—[Official Report,11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 61W.]
I gather that it will be published this week. It might even show that the number has increased by one or two over the past six months, but even if it has gone up by a few, it has decreased by nearly 3,000 since the general election. There are fewer officers doing the job that the commander in Southwark and the chief constable of Cumbria, to whom I spoke a couple of weeks ago, want them to do. However much people might argue that we do not get better law and order with more police officers, I have never heard anyone argue that we get better law and order with fewer.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he wants the Home Secretary or the chief constables to set the number of police officers?

Mr. Hughes: That is a good question from the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. When the

Government came to power, they said, following legislation introduced by the Tory Government, that the setting of police numbers was a matter not for them but for chief constables. Yet, at the Labour conference before last, the Home Secretary made a big speech announcing more money for the police. Suddenly, the Government intervened, saying that that money must be spent on more police officers and that police chiefs were not free to spend it on what they wanted. That is why the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) asked the right question. The answer is that the police should be allowed to choose what to spend the money on. The Home Secretary should not be telling them what they should spend their money on, as the Government have recently been doing, in contrast to their approach when they first came to office.
I noticed that there was also one other figure to which the Home Secretary did not refer: one that the Minister gave me yesterday in a written answer. I asked the Secretary of State to set out
what proportion and total amount of (a) total Government spending and (b) gross domestic product was spent on policing in each of the last five years.—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 60W.]
When Labour came to office, the proportion of Government expenditure spent on policing was 2.05 per cent. That rose to 2.12 per cent. and 2.17 per cent. in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 respectively. This year, the figure is lower than at any time since Labour came to office, at 2.07 per cent.
More tellingly, police provision as a proportion of money GDP has fallen every year since 1996–97, and, at 0.81 per cent., is now lower than at any time since the Government came to office. Only from the beginning of the new financial year in April—probably a matter of weeks before the election—will there be an increase, for the first time under this Labour Government, in the money spent on policing as a proportion of our national wealth.
When people were asked to vote Labour at the election and were told that there would be more bobbies on the beat and that Labour would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, they never imagined that every year for the first four years of a Labour Government the amount of our national budget spent on the police would fall, and that the number of police would be down, not by tens or hundreds but by thousands, or that the numbers would start to creep back up only just a few weeks before the next election.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I answered the hon. Gentleman's written question. He might have done me the courtesy of setting out in full the figures that I gave him. Here they are: in 1996–97, police spending under the Conservatives as a proportion of Government spending was 1.98 per cent; in 1997–98, the figure was 2.05 per cent., rising to 2.12 per cent. for 1998–99, 2.17 per cent. for 1999–2000 and, as the hon. Gentleman said, 2.07 per cent. in the current year. Next year and the year after, the figure will be 2.15 per cent. In every year of the Labour Government, the proportion has been higher than that under the Conservatives, and as a result of the comprehensive spending review it is targeted to keep on rising. The hon. Gentleman might have given us credit for that.

Mr. Hughes: I entirely accept that. I was not trying to be selective. That is why I read out the list. The list of


figures for police provision as a proportion of money GDP shows that, even in two years' time, the percentage spent will be less than that spent in the year before the election. The Minister must look at both figures.

Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way.
The central point is that not only has the proportion of spending as a total of our wealth fallen but the output, to use the Home Secretary's word—people on the beat; those whom we buy—has fallen. That has had a direct effect on the amount of crime, criminality and the number of people caught.

Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman intervened twice on the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald; somebody else can have a turn later.
The Tories are confused. They still have not sorted out whether asylum seekers should be detained or housed only in reception centres. They still have not decided whether they believe in mandatory sentences. They first believed in mandatory sentences for everybody, but were against them when Tony Martin was convicted. They still have not decided whether they are in favour of zero tolerance for drugs, or whether, even if they knew their policy, all of them are in favour of it. That all adds up to a lack of credibility, which is not overly persuasive. The Tories' policies have been tested by only one significant by-election in the past year—in Romsey—and we know that they got a drubbing there.
There is therefore real danger and sadness in a Labour Government trying in some respects to be as populist as the Tories. The Home Secretary sometimes makes thoughtful contributions, as he did on "Newsnight" the other night. Indeed, I watched his performance on Sunday lunchtime television, which seemed straight down the line and entirely uncomplicated. I do not criticise him for such contributions. However, he often falls prey to the same temptations as Opposition Front Benchers.
The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister came up with the wacky idea of walking drunken hooligans to the cash machine, before they realised that it was totally incredible. It was dropped after police chiefs told them that it was a good idea to do so. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have now come up with the idea of curfews for 10-year-olds to 16-year-olds. There has been no pilot scheme, trialling or testing and clearly there has been no great support from anybody in the know. The right hon. Gentlemen also persist with the idea that it is central to the Government's law and order strategy—the measures are in one of the key four Bills before the election—to take from people the right to choose jury trial, although there is not a shred of evidence that it will affect crime figures. As the Home Secretary has conceded, that entirely contradicts his party's position of only a couple of years ago. One regular worry about the Government is that principle behind policy is often difficult to define, and that the principle of defending civil liberties behind policies is often not to be seen at all.
There are five Home Office Bills. We shall talk about the Hunting Bill on Monday, so I do not intend to detain the House on it, other than to say that our party is opposed

to hunting with hounds but our manifesto commitment was that everyone in both Houses should be free to vote according to their conscience. Like other parties, we shall do so. We support the Vehicles (Crime) Bill and the Private Security Industry Bill, which are in large measure uncontroversial and come in the category of what we would call sensible reform. They have been widely trailed.
We regard the jury trial Bill as absolutely foolish, wrong, misguided and not at all central to any sensible law and order policy. The Home Secretary has miscalculated if he thinks that he will get it through Parliament. It will pass through Parliament only if, first, the Government use the Parliament Act, and, secondly, it proceeds far enough by the time the relevant 13 months to have passed. My colleagues and I, and those in the other place, will do everything in our power to delay, as well as prevent, the legislation. We believe that we shall again succeed, and that for a third time the Government will have wasted their effort in trying to pass a Bill for which they have no manifesto commitment and to which they therefore have no constitutional right to expect Parliament to agree—and in relation to which they certainly have no justification for the use of the Parliament Acts.

Miss Anne Begg: Is the hon. Gentleman lobbying the right hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the Minister for Justice in the Scottish Parliament, to bring the Scottish legal system in line with the present English legal system on mode of trial? For as long as I can remember, the prosecution has chosen the mode of trial in Scotland, yet there has been no clamour in Scotland to change to the system in England and Wales. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman are in the same party, so is the hon. Gentleman thinking along those lines?

Mr. Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Lady has been involved in such debates before. We have been round the course often. The Scots have an entirely different system—w[Interruption.] hey have different courts and powers. The lower court has no power to send a case to a higher court following sentencing. Different people decide about the prosecution. The systems are not comparable, so I do not seek to lobby my right hon. and learned Friend, and he does not seek to lobby me.

Mr. David Kidney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I want to push on.
We have not yet seen the fifth Bill, the criminal justice and police Bill, but we understand that one of its great new ideas is the fixed penalty notice for people under the influence of alcohol. It sounds a little incredible to walk someone who has been arrested to the police station to give them a fixed penalty notice.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: Clamp them!

Mr. Hughes: Clamping them might be possible, but I do not understand that yet to have been proposed. Dealing with people is entirely different from dealing with a car—an obvious and relatively immoveable object sitting by the side of the road. There is no problem about identity


or the nature of the beast. One does not have to consider whether someone is drunk or sober, and there is no one to answer back or fight back. I think that the Government will realise that their proposition is probably unworkable and little more than another bauble in the shop window. The measure is intended to look tough, but is unlikely to succeed.
The curfew proposal is more serious. Our gut reaction is to be against it. For the first time in my life, I convened a focus group and, when I consulted its members on the issue, they were against it. Yesterday, I went to Walworth school in my constituency and talked to the youngsters there. One youngster at that secondary school gave an accurate summary of the inaccuracy and wrongness of the proposal when he said that it would be like punishing the whole class for the mistakes of one or two people. Those youngsters were not at all persuaded about the proposal and I shall tell the Home Secretary about their suggestions in a minute. I have not found any police enthusiasm for the proposal. If there were loads of police and they had nothing better to do than wander around and try to deal with all the youngsters on the streets, it might be credible. In Scotland, the Strathclyde experience is not a parallel and has not been defined in any event as a curfew.
The Government must make the case and win the argument. We do not think that they will, and it is highly likely that my colleagues and I will seek to remove this part of the Bill in both Houses. In contrast with what the Government normally do, we have seen not seen a trial or testing of the proposal in England or Wales, and there is no evidence that it works. Indeed, the best Home Office research suggests that it is the wrong way forward. It is a sign of the authoritarian streak that keeps reappearing in the Labour party and is without sound principle. The right to silence was lost some years ago; the burden of proof is often under threat; and the right to choose jury trial the Government want to take away. There is a worrying trend in the Labour Government's policy that seeks to be more and more authoritarian and less and less understanding of the fact that people's basic civil liberties should also include being able to walk around in the evening or at night. That should hold for law-abiding citizens, whether they are under or over 16.
I shall say a further word about young people. There is real demonising of young people. Society often demonises them in general, but there is a particular risk of those in the inner city being demonised. I chose to live in the inner city in my early 20s, and have never moved away. We all know that there are brilliant models of good young people who will be the citizens and leaders of the future. We should listen more to them before we start ghettoising them by estate, street, postcode or neighbourhood. If we go down the road of having curfews, we risk alienating many more young people than we will get on the side of the police and order.

Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that young people in Strathclyde and Hamilton in Scotland support the joint initiative of the police and local authority? That initiative works in Scotland and is very similar to what the Government are proposing. It is a child safety

initiative which protects young people and the victims of crime. Young people who are the victims of crime are out on the streets, not the perpetrators.

Mr. Hughes: I have seen a briefing from Strathclyde and talked to Scottish colleagues. The scheme is targeted on individual youngsters who are regular offenders. That is different from what the hon. Lady is saying. Powers already exist for young offenders to be dealt with in the usual way. The police do not need extra powers to do that. The scheme is linked to constructive activities for young people to divert them from crime, which are as important as the scheme itself. The idea that there is suddenly a blanket approach at 9 or 10 o'clock for a certain age group, which is very difficult to define, as opposed to proposals for specific youngsters, tackles the problem in the wrong way. We agree on the need to deal with individual regular offenders, but we do not accept generalised views of certain areas or estates.

Mr. Straw: Of course, we will discuss this in more detail when the Bill is in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman examines the proposal, he will see that it is very similar to that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna). Far from being an imposition from the centre, it gives a power to local authorities and local communities. Application for that power must be preceded by discussion with the local community.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that. We shall return to this debate later, but may I quickly say that the same power has been available for the under-10s but, so far, no one has asked to use it. The power has now been extended to under-16s, but it has not been trialled or tested and there have been no local opportunities to see whether it has been taken up or worked. Suddenly, there appears to be a policy for which there will be national legislation. The Home Secretary may have spoken to different people, but I have not met any significant numbers of police or lay people who have said that they need the power. Without the numbers of police that are needed, the power will probably—indeed, even certainly—not be used in any event.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall press on, and come back to the hon. Gentleman in a second.
Today's debate also concerns the inner cities, where it is intended that the power will often be used. Of course, in our inner cities we must encourage personal responsibility and support for families and must make sure that there are diverting activities for youngsters. However, above all we must build up sustainable communities. That is a catchphrase, but it refers to more than bricks and mortar, and is about communities of geography and communities of identity as well. When we allocate homes to people, we must stop disregarding where their family lives, where the nursery school is and where the carers and people who can do the babysitting are. Lord Young, now a Labour peer in the other place, is an eminent sociologist who has written a book that I commend to colleagues. In "The Communities We Have Lost and Can Regain", he makes it clear that if we are to regain proper law-abiding life in the inner cities, we must


get rid of politically correct housing allocation policy in the public sector, which has disregarded community ties in the allocation of houses over the past 20 or 30 years. Lord Young says that we must return to an allocation policy that is far more sensitive to the communities that we are seeking to build and strengthen. We also need more sport and out-of-school activity. Clearly, better education, jobs and training are needed, too.
One thing is needed above all, however, and it is the same for inner cities as it is elsewhere: there must be a renunciation of violence. Coupled with drugs, the great evil is the willingness of people to resort to violence in the home, on the pitch, in the playground—where there are bullies—and on the streets, where people use knives, bottles and anything else. Too often, our role models use violence. Too often, television programmes display violence and videos glamorise it. Unless we all have a less violent society, there will always be violent youngsters. Children are not violent in their first few weeks of life or when they first go off to nursery school. They start to be violent only because they see others behaving violently.

Mr. Bercow: One cannot object to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. His position on child curfews is commendably clear, in contrast to the fog of confusion that descends when it comes to police expenditure. Using our fertile imaginations to the full, let us envisage a scenario in which there is a Liberal Democrat Administration and the hon. Gentleman is Home Secretary. Is he seriously telling the House that his party would increase police expenditure as a proportion of national wealth? In that case, at what time today did he decide on that policy?

Mr. Hughes: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes and the answer to the second is that that policy was not decided today. I should be surprised if the hon. Gentleman had not read our alternative Budget but, if he has not, I shall send him a copy. The policy is in that document, our pre-manifesto and our alternative Queen's Speech. If the hon. Gentleman has not read those documents, he should take them to bed with him, because they might at least keep him quiet.
To conclude, police officers are not the be-all and end-all, but they are centrally important. Our party has made a commitment to the fact that we need at least 130,000 officers in England and Wales. How many we need thereafter should not be decided by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), the Home Secretary or the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), but by an advisory body that regularly gives independent, objective advice from a standing conference.
There is an entire police agenda, and we regret that the Government have not allowed an opportunity for it to be debated. The debate should be about pay, conditions, housing, pensions, special constables and more retained officers. It should also be about neighbourhood wardens and a community safety constabulary.
We need a Prison Service that works; at present, it is often direly ineffectual. If we prevented many more who leave prison from reoffending, as half do within two years, there would be a chance of bringing crime figures down. That entails dealing properly with drugs, alcohol, violence and sex offenders.
We need a crime prevention programme that spends the worthwhile budget granted by the Home Secretary. At the end of the first year, only 2 per cent. of the budget of £383 million had been spent.
We need fair treatment for all our citizens. The Home Secretary rightly seeks to make sure that that is Government policy, but he has had one blind spot. Contrary to the views of many Labour party members, he insisted that asylum seekers should shop with vouchers, whereas everyone else shops with money. If anything will stigmatise people who are already stigmatised, it is the fact that they must go out on the street unable to act like self-respecting citizens.
Lastly, we need better treatment of victims, as we agree throughout Parliament. My colleagues and I believe, among other things, that victims should have a better opportunity to present their case to courts after sentence, not just in writing.
There may be a shared commitment to the law and order agenda, but there is also a dangerous auction between the Government and the Tory party for sounding tough, as opposed to being effective. That is not the way to go. We will support policies that have shown that they are likely to be effective—which have been tried and tested and command widespread support. We will oppose policies that take away liberties for no matching benefit. That means that the Government will get our support this Session for some of the Bills, as I have suggested, but if they insist on taking away the right to choose jury trial, we will oppose them, and we believe that we will defeat them.
Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a limit of 12 minutes on all Back-Bench speeches, which applies from now on. I call Mr. Michael.

Mr. Alun Michael: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoiled what seemed in some respects to be a serious speech with some petty knockabout. It is almost inevitable that he will criticise both other parties—that is virtually written into the script before he starts—but the self-indulgent knockabout, whereby he caricatured sensible proposals with a soundbite, was disgraceful.
For example, the proposal for fixed penalties would be quick and effective, it would avoid red tape and time in the courts, and it would teach a lesson. It is a sensible proposal which should not be caricatured. The hon. Gentleman then argued that the right, as it is described, of people to choose where they are to be tried is fundamental. He was blown out of the water by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg).
The court should decide where either-way cases should be tried. That is a balanced approach. Magistrates would be required to give reasons for their decision about where the trial takes place. That would allow cases that ought to go to a higher court and be subject to a stronger penalty to be dealt with appropriately. The comments of both the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) were inappropriate. The safeguards are in place, including the right of appeal to the Crown court against the magistrates' decision.
I am pleased that, having considered the arguments, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary changed his view on the matter, and I am glad that he is pushing forward with the policy. It is ludicrous to argue that the court in which a case is decided should be settled on the whim of a defendant, by the gamble of a defendant who knows that he is guilty, or possibly on the basis of the quality of legal advice that he gets, rather than being decided objectively by the court.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to persevere with the sensible enabling measure on curfews. Again, the caricature of that by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey did him no credit. Of course, civil liberties need protecting. The civil liberty of young people, as well as that of older people, to walk the streets at night safely needs to be protected.
We frequently hear complaints that children and young people are out on the streets way after the time when that is reasonable and are causing nuisance and problems. What is the response? The police say that their hands are tied and there is nothing they can do. The measure will give them the capacity to tackle such nuisance. For example, when I discussed that type of nuisance with the local community on a housing estate in my constituency, a woman stood up and said, "I know that that is a real problem. My son is one of those causing the nuisance." Several other people said, "Oh, no. Your son is a nice lad." She said, "He is a nice lad, but he is over 6 ft. His dad left home four or five years ago. I can't stop him if he wants to go out at night. He says to me, 'Why should I stay home when everybody else is out on the street?'".
Let us look at the process of consultation set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. First, the local authority has to propose a scheme, which must be approved by the Home Secretary. Then, the area and the problem must be defined. The problem must be discussed not just by the local authority and the police, but by the local community. There should be an opportunity to listen to people like that mother, who wants to be given back the authority to set reasonable limits for her child, and to listen to the community, which wants to set limits in respect of children's behaviour, rather than allowing those children to run amok, out of control.

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to discuss with him right now the merits of the curfew scheme, but he appears to be proposing a penalty without a trial. Does not that conflict with the convention?

Mr. Michael: Here we have another lawyer trying to wrap us up in words, instead of considering the problems that affect people in the streets and on our housing estates. We are discussing giving authority back to parents and the community. Of course, if no problem exists, the measure will not be used. Communities will take back control where yobs are creating misery for local people, but local authorities are not obliged to act on the measure, and nor are the police.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) gave the example of Hamilton, which shows that where a problem exists and such a scheme is used in a targeted way, it can be beneficial.

The scheme does not have to be used if warnings and co-operation with the local community do the trick. It would be marvellous if it were never used and nuisance were reduced on our estates, but the power will be available. There will be no excuse for the police, the local authority or anyone else saying that there is nothing that they can do.
I hope that it will be recognised that the child curfew scheme has a dual purpose. As well as protecting residents' interests, it is also intended to protect the interests of children. Often, horrific things happen because children are out on the streets at night, when they should not be. The figures from the Hamilton child safety initiative are stunning: 87 per cent. of parents of children returned home by the police approved of the initiative. That shows the extent of support from parents. Crime and public complaints about disorder fell by 23 and 22 per cent. respectively, and crime associated with juveniles, such as theft and vandalism, was down by 49 per cent.
I say to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, let us look at the facts before we ignore the civil liberties of those who are disturbed by groups of youngsters behaving in a yobbish manner, and let us make sure that we target that problem.

Mr. Bill Tynan: The Hamilton initiative was a child safety initiative. We should rid ourselves of the notion of curfew. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success achieved in Hamilton and the extent to which neighbourhoods and communities are asking for the scheme to be extended prove the worth of such initiatives?

Mr. Michael: Yes, absolutely. Partnership with the community is central. That is provided for in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 with respect to the younger age group. We have listened and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has rightly responded to the request for the age limit to be increased. Such schemes can tackle the problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) said.
The programme in the Queen's Speech keeps faith with those who backed Labour in the belief that we would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. From police resources to the banning of hand guns, from cash to crime reduction and the strategic developments in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Government have delivered.
It would be easy for the Home Secretary to sit back, after three years of frenetic activity, and relax for a while. Instead, the Queen's Speech shows the Government intensifying the battle against crime and the fear of crime.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is tackling some of the scandals that the previous Government left behind. I remind the House that the Conservative Government ignored the strong advice of the Select Committee on Home Affairs about the urgent need to regulate the private security industry. The Committee's report was debated in Back-Bench Opposition time because the previous Government were afraid of tackling the issue. The previous Home Secretary gave not the slightest glimmer of hope that he would tackle the problem, whereas my right hon. Friend is grasping the nettle. I shall tell the House why.
When I undertook a review of the issues on behalf of the then shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is now Prime Minister, I found an appalling situation. A senior police officer said:
I personally find it monstrous that people with convictions for burglary in dwelling houses are being allowed to run businesses and work for such companies whilst having strings of convictions for the offence for which they are purporting to protect the public.
Another senior police officer, referring to a new security firm, said:
You may share my concern and dismay when I tell you that … the person who formed the company is a man with many previous convictions and is currently on bail as well as being a disqualified driver. Working with him in his security business is a man who has 23 pages of convictions on the Police National Computer … most of these convictions involve burglary and theft in domestic property. He has only recently been released from prison and he too is a disqualified driver.
That sounds a fine team. These are the sort of people who need to be controlled.
The previous Government neglected the problem and refused to respond, whereas my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has responded. I accept that the strategic issues involving the Crime and Disorder Act, for example, had to be put in place first, but we are tackling the scandal in the first Parliament of a Labour Government. I am delighted to welcome the news from my right hon. Friend.
I also welcome the promise to regulate wheel clamping, which can be a real nuisance and a danger, especially for women drivers, if it is done in the wrong place at the wrong time. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) for campaigning for a change in the law. Clamping is of course a useful mechanism in the right place at the right time.
I challenge Conservative Members to put their constituents' safety and peace of mind above the temptation to make petty party political points. They should support the use of antisocial behaviour orders instead of threatening to abolish them. Those of us who have seen the misery created on a housing estate or in an inner-city area by one or two families or two or three individuals running amok, often committing a series of low-level crimes that create nuisance and intimidation, know that the ASBO was a much-needed measure.
The order is designed to prevent such activities. There are about 30 known breaches of ASBOs, the penalties for which have ranged from fines to imprisonment. I urge the courts to use their powers well. The message must go out from the courts that breach of an ASBO is no trivial matter. It is meant to be a preventive measure, and the courts must support the intention of the House that people should be warned, on the basis of their past behaviour, to stop antisocial behaviour so that others feel safe in their homes.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to maintain momentum on two fronts. The first is the crime and disorder partnership. Next year, every local authority and every police division will have to have regard to the crime and disorder audit in their area. There are good examples of the way in which that was done the first time round. The outcome must be much better the second time round so that real problems can be targeted. The second front is youth crime. I commend the work of Lord Warner and the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales and local youth offending teams in getting the necessary

measures into place. I am pleased that the courts are succeeding in reducing the time that is taken to get young offenders before them.
Many of the measures in the Queen's Speech will help us to continue the success of the past three years, which have shown a reduction in crime. I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about the success of the Cardiff scheme. We need to learn from that, and ensure that safety and freedom from violent crime is the success of the next three years so that people can walk the streets in safety. It can be done, and it must be done throughout the country.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The rag-bag of measures in the Queen's Speech is a rather sad reminder of the grand rhetoric that accompanied the coming into power of the Government only three and a half years ago. It is a long way from all the great talk about the third way and modernising Britain. We have come down to a thin Session, with some worthy and some unworthy little Bills to fill in the time between now and the general election.
We know that the general election is a short time away—it is one of the worst-kept secrets in politics. It is likely to be on 3 May. The secret has been kept so badly that the Prime Minister will lose considerable face if he adjourns the election beyond that date. As a result, the Queen's Speech was bound to be thin, with few measures. However, the Government were not full of ideas and purpose, with Ministers competing with each other in trying to force Bills into the last legislative programme before the election. Having read the Queen's Speech, it is obvious that the Government had to go round Whitehall to find Ministers who wished to introduce Bills to fill in the time between now and May. The fourth Queen's Speech of the Session shows a Government who have run out of steam.
As ever, the Government went back to the Home Office, which had a staggering number of Bills in the previous Session. The electoral prospects were considered and it was rightly decided that the public are still concerned about crime and law and order. As we know from some notorious memos, the Prime Minister has been desperate to find eye-catching initiatives that will tell the public that he meant what he said when he used the utterly meaningless phrase about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. The right hon. Gentleman was shadowing me when he produced that phrase, and it was one that made him the leader of the Labour party. On the day that he became leader, he was no more capable of explaining what it meant than he was when he uttered it. It is not the only example of a good one-liner in politics that carries someone a long way.
We know that the Prime Minister wishes to have eye-catching initiatives, preferably those with which he can be personally associated, to show that he is being tough on crime and on the causes of crime. Therefore, the Home Secretary—

Mr. David Lammy: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I am sorry. I have only 12 minutes and I speak at much greater length than that on any occasion.
The fact that the Home Office has produced five Bills reveals that, when faced with the demand to produce sufficient to make the legislative programme dominated by Bills on crime, it could do very little to fill the gap. Regulating the security industry is an old chestnut for the Labour party. It will burden the police with a considerable amount of administrative work and make demands on manpower, which will be tied down in regulating one of the few industries that is left unregulated in this over-regulated country.
Vehicle crime measures seem worthy but not terribly important. Anything that reduces the amount of vehicle crime is to be welcomed, and if new legislation makes the law easier to enforce, so be it. I would welcome an attempt to tackle some of the weaknesses that have been displayed in the law on money laundering and on the proceeds of crime. It is a complex problem and the Home Office is able to promise only a draft Bill.
We are left with an attack on disorderly conduct. I am sure that I shall welcome part of it. We know that in market towns and suburbs throughout the country—not only socially deprived inner cities and bad urban estates—there is concern about minor disorder, vandalism and petty crime, which make such a great difference to people's lives. As politicians have always known, the difficulty is finding what can be done in legislation to tackle the problem. If something is done to make it easier to prosecute people for drinking cans of beer in the street and easier to get a penalty from people who are drunk in the streets, that will be welcome. Some of the other proposals seem again to be scraping the barrel.
I shall learn more about the Strathclyde experiment, but I am slightly alarmed about curfews. It is contemplated that a youngster who has not previously been in trouble may suddenly get in trouble for going out at the wrong time of night. That is because somebody has decided that a curfew should apply in a certain area. If we are not careful, we shall be drawn into introducing draconian measures that are misguided responses to public concern.

Mr. Michael: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry, but no.
Why is the last Session of this Parliament to be spent discussing minor matters of vandalism, drunkenness and youthful delinquency on estates? The Government were told by their focus groups that such matters mattered to the public. Why did the Prime Minister come up with the dotty idea of waking up drunken youths and taking them to a hole-in-the-wall machine so that they can produce their credit card and pay an on-the-spot fine? Out went Mr. Gould with his focus groups. We all know that when people talk about crime, they mention people throwing around litter bins, drinking in the street and gathering in the town centre, so the Home Office has been asked to produce measure after measure to tackle such behaviour. If something worthwhile emerges, so be it, but I echo the observation made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe): if the Government think that such measures will cheer up the public and make them think that the Government are now on top of the problems of crime and disorder, they will find that they cannot meet the expectations.
In relation to his policy on the police, the Home Secretary has unwisely made foolish and misleading remarks about police numbers, so we have all gone back to playing the numbers game—arguing about how police numbers are moving. When I was Home Secretary, I removed from myself the absurd responsibility given to me for deciding how many police officers should be allocated to each and every police service in the country. The whole point of creating a more effective police service is to provide proper resources and leave to the local chief constable, in conjunction with his officers and local police authority, the responsibility for setting local priorities. Some police services want many more policemen, some want fewer and greater civilianisation, and some have other priorities.
What needs to be tackled and enhanced is police effectiveness, which means that resources have to be right and morale has to be raised. We also have to follow up the work of targeting individual crimes, setting proper performance indicators and not allowing too much police effort to be diverted into populist measures, such as installing better cameras to increase fines derived from speeding motorists to finance the police service and ease the burden on the Treasury. Instead, we should concentrate on supporting the best chief constables and the best police authorities in getting the best from their service.
The fifth Bill the Home Office has come up with is a complete disgrace and it is the reason why I speak today. To fill up the Session with law and order measures, the Government have reintroduced the Bill dealing with the right to choose jury trial. It is the most illiberal measure. The Bill has been thrown out, rightly, by the reformed House of Lords, and it looks as though the Government are returning to the charge to use the Parliament Acts to push the Bill through.
I no longer understand why the Bill has been produced. Originally, the reason was to save money—about £120 million—but that argument no longer stands up and the Government have abandoned it since it became apparent that about £80 million of that was meant to be derived from the shorter prison sentences that magistrates were to hand out. It sounds as though the Home Secretary thought that the Bill would alter the incidence of crime in this country, but I consider that most unlikely. Is the recidivist charged with stealing a Mars bar more likely to be convicted by magistrates than by jurors, and does that help to improve the effectiveness of law enforcement? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has the first idea why he is introducing the Bill.
The Bill has often been described by junior Home Office Ministers as a measure to modernise the criminal justice system, but the right to choose jury trial for the offences catalogued in the Bill, some of which are fairly serious, is not some ancient mystery. We do not just tolerate the fact that jury trial is still to be used in respect of all the most serious crimes. It is a traditional liberty. It is not an attack on magistrates courts to say that Crown court trial is superior: in Crown court cases, there is prior disclosure of the case against the accused and of documents, arguments about the admissibility of evidence take place in the absence of the jury, and there is the jury itself. When the Conservatives were in office, every member of the Labour party would, rightly, have described juries as a bastion of our liberties and jury trial as something that anyone accused of a significant crime should be entitled to choose.
There has been an argument about whether a bishop or a Member of Parliament who is accused of stealing a Mars bar should have greater right to jury trial than the man who already has 15 convictions and is accused of the same theft. The Government's reaction to that complex issue has been to go in the illiberal direction: so impressed are they by the argument that one should not discriminate between the two types of accused that the bishop, or the Member of Parliament, is to lose the right to choose jury trial if he is accused of, say, obtaining property by fraud, or many of the other offences covered by the Bill.
The Government are persisting with the Bill because they do not want to lose face: they introduced it, so they are going to persist with it. They have been defeated by new Labour peers, the Liberal party and the Conservative party. Against them is ranged the liberal establishment, so if they use the terms employed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), they can appeal to the right-wing, populist section of the public by arguing that it is too kind to criminals to give too many people the right to jury trial.
By such measures, one can judge the state of a Government. At the end of their period of office, the Labour Government are tired and worn out. They cannot produce significant legislation on the subject of law and order, so they persist with a most illiberal measure that is wholly contrary to the concept of civil liberties. The Queen's Speech should be condemned on that ground alone.

Mr. Robin Corbett: People in my constituency, both young and old, are trying to do something about crime and disorder to supplement the Government's actions since being elected and their plans for the new Session.
At Stockland Green secondary school, members of a youth crime prevention club have used a £4,000 grant from millennium quest funding to learn how to fit mortice locks, and are now doing so in the homes of vulnerable members of the local community. That crime prevention work provides another message, as most of the club members are girls.
In Castle Vale—a thriving former tower block estate where residents are helping to lead regeneration—young and old are involved in a series of groups combating domestic violence, drug abuse and anti-social behaviour, in conjunction with local police, council officers and people from the Castle Vale housing action trust, which is leading the efforts. Only this morning, I received a letter from the trust telling me that, after an 18-day trial, it had successfully gained five out of five possession orders against the homes of those who have committed offences against the community. Nobody wants anyone else to lose their home, but everyone must understand that there is a limit to the mayhem and chaos that families—whether individual members or whole families—can and do cause to their community.
The interesting thing about today's news is that, if the trial had even been contemplated five or seven years ago, there would have been a public demonstration on the estate to protect those residents who were stealing the security and safety of others, because the residents would have thought that they had to stick together. For the first time, 26 residents—many of them neighbours—the

police, the remarkable head teacher of Castle Vale comprehensive school, contractors and others have gone to court to back up evidence and make statements regarding misbehaviour, anti-social behaviour and crime committed by those against whom the possession orders were sought. I pay tribute to the people of Castle Vale, who have now insisted that they will take back to themselves the safety and security that has been stolen from them. They are not waiting for others to prevent or solve crime. They understand that we all have a responsibility.
In her calmer moments, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) knows that, however many officers there are, the police alone cannot prevent and solve crime, hence the importance of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the community safety partnerships that are developing between communities, councils, police, the voluntary sector, businesses and others. The development of policing based on operation command units underpins that by giving local police—more local under that policy—full responsibility for crime, its prevention and detection in the areas they serve. The House knows that additional officers and extra money do not, by themselves, guarantee a lower crime rate. It is not numbers alone that are critical; leadership, equipment and links between the police and the local communities that they serve are the more important key to combating and reducing crime.
I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that we should make it clear that we do not regard being young as being an offence. All but a small handful of young people are law-abiding and want to take advantage of the extra opportunities that teachers work so hard to offer in our schools and colleges, and which employers offer in the workplace, to make the most of their lives.
But that said, small, thoughtless groups of yobs can and do combine to steal the safety and security that everyone has a right to expect in and around their own homes. There are many areas of my constituency, not all of them facing severe deprivation, where the few cause nuisance, annoyance and fear to the many. That is why I welcome measures in the Gracious Speech to make our high streets and town centres safer—safer for young people who are the main victims of crime as well as for others—and to get in early to try to divert young people from anti-social behaviour and petty crime.
The anti-social behaviour orders and the new plans for fixed-penalty offences, such as being drunk and disorderly and using insulting words, are wanted in communities in my constituency and, I suspect, throughout the country, by the police and public alike. But those are only a few of the tools available to the courts to deal with persistent young offenders. However, they have the advantage of insisting that parents take proper responsibility for the behaviour of their children when they are away from home, and of providing the help that they need to do so if necessary.
The present and new powers have to be seen against the fact that the Government have helped 250,000 young people, left to rot by the previous Government, off the dole and into jobs and training. About 1,300 young people in my constituency have been helped off the dole by the new deal, off benefits and into jobs and training, and most of those have gone into what I would call properly paid jobs, not subsidised ones.
I especially welcome the moves in the Gracious Speech to crack down on cowboy clampers, an issue ignored by the previous Government, and, if the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is anything to go by, one which they thought was completely unimportant. In and around the centre of Birmingham, cowboy clampers operate from mobile phones, publishing no business addresses and using tactics, including terror, to extract cash from helpless victims. In one case, a young woman was asked to hand over jewellery when she could not produce a credit card to obtain cash from a cashpoint. In another, a woman suffering from severe diabetes, who did not know the city and did not have a credit card but needed to get home to take her medication, was held up by cowboys until she managed to contact a friend and raise money. Those are abuses of our constituents.
I am also pleased to welcome what has been proposed for security guards—bouncers—on club doors. Much progress has been made in Birmingham and elsewhere in that regard, and I am delighted that that will be extended throughout the country.
The Opposition make much of the fall in police numbers. In fact, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that started in 1992, when the Opposition forget that they were in office. It is also when they took responsibility for setting police numbers from the Home Secretary and gave it, properly, to chief constables. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald did not explain her apparent change of mind. It follows from all that she said that she wants the Home Secretary to be given the powers to set police numbers in 43 police forces throughout England and Wales—an impossibility.
It is extraordinary that not a single member of the shadow Cabinet is on the Opposition Front Bench. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has just returned, but it has been empty for some long time. The right hon. Lady comes back just in time for me to remind her that, despite having been in office for 18 years, Conservative Members think that it is enough just to say sorry. It is not enough for those victims of crime which doubled when the right hon. Lady was in the Home Office and the Conservative Government were in power. It is not enough when they presided over a regime when, although there was more crime, fewer people were sent to prison. We had more crime and fewer criminals. It takes a brilliant Government to achieve that.
In my constituency, under the Government whom the right hon. Lady supported, the chance of being burgled rose from one in 32 to one in 13—and it happened—and the chance of being a victim of violent crime trebled. That was the so-called golden inheritance with regard to law and order.
In contrast, during the next year alone, the police are being given an extra £10 in every £100 to build their strength. The crime fighting fund, targeted to deliver results, has the cash for an extra 9,000 officers over and above what chief constables planned for this year and for the following two years. In the west midlands, that will mean about an extra 1,300 officers during the next three years.
But at a time when 1 million extra people are in jobs, with unemployment at its lowest for 25 years, the police will find it harder to recruit, as will other public sector employers,

such as the health service, schools, the fire and ambulance services, and so on. In such a labour market, it is not so much cash which will attract the recruits likely to be of most value to the police force, as commitment, wanting to be part of a body helping to restore pride among the different communities in the areas where they live.

Miss Widdecombe: During my time in the Home Office, crime fell year on year, the prison population rose to record levels, and the number of constables rose year on year. How does that compare with this Home Secretary's record?

Mr. Corbett: The figures of the Government of whom the right hon. Lady was a member speak for themselves.
As other employers in the new high-tech industries have found, money is not enough to secure and retain the recruits that they need. We should learn the lessons where we can. It is not for nothing that Japanese companies operating here test for commitment before giving people the opportunity to apply for a specific job.
It is good to know that people in my constituency now have a lower fear of crime than they had a few years ago, although for too many it is still too high. More is being done to build links between the communities and those agencies which can help them to reclaim the safety and security that too many have had stolen from them. The Bills in the Queen's Speech are part of that process, but the real difference will be made by people in local communities who get the help that they need when they need it to reawaken that sense of belonging and community which is the best guarantee of safety and security.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: There has been a good deal of ding-dong on police numbers during the debate. They are a problem for us in Bedfordshire. The numbers have fallen since the last election. The main figure that I have in mind is that, during the previous 18 years, they rose by 16,000 nationally, which puts the fact that they have fallen under the present Government into perspective.
The other worry about policing is the difficulty of recruitment and problems of morale. It is not easy for the police. I know—and I see beside me my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney)—that there are real problems at Huntingdon Life Sciences as a result of the serious misbehaviour by the animal rights movement, which is putting the police in great difficulty. I urge the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), to turn their attention to that. I am sure that they will do so.
I join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in deploring the reappearance in this short Session before the general election of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill to abolish the right to trial by jury. That is hopelessly ill judged. It is remarkable that a Labour Government—who, to their credit, had leading shadow opposition posts occupied by the Home Secretary who then condemned any such suggestion, and by the Attorney-General and Prime Minister who condemned such ideas—should then make a volte face to bring in such a thoroughly illiberal and inappropriate measure.
This is the third time that the Government have introduced the measure. On the first occasion, it was thrown out by the other place because it was inequitable with regard to different types of defendant. Far from learning their lesson and leaving it there, the Government then reintroduced the measure in an even more inequitable form, which tried to ensure that ordinary people who sought the right to trial by jury could not even have their personal circumstances taken into account. The Government managed to get some support from the Runciman royal commission for their first Bill. They also gained support for it from the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, albeit in a speech that was, I am bound to say, rather lukewarm.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a succession of lawyers to keep making these points when not one of them has declared an interest in the issue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is a matter not for the Chair, but for the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who is addressing the House.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) is fully aware that I have been a member of the Bar for 35 years. I have not done any criminal work since before I entered government in 1986, but my position as a Queen's Counsel is well recorded. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman does not want to address the important points.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I rise in case my silence is taken as assent to criticism. I have not practised for 20 years and I have no intention of doing so again. Members of an illiberal Government who are damaging civil rights will not do their cause any good by attributing base motives to hon. Members who are defending the right to jury trial.

Sir Nicholas Lye11: I return to the faults of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill. When I read the Gracious Speech, I was astonished not only that the Government were reintroducing the Bill that opposes the right to jury trial, but that it had exactly the same words and title, which demonstrated that they intended to use the Parliament Acts to force its passage if they were so minded.
In an intervention on the Home Secretary, I pointed out the disgraceful inequities of the Bill, apart from my opposition in principle to the underlying concept. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would listen carefully, so I hope that he will at least consider making some amendments. As he knows, the Bill has been attacked by Lord Bingham, who wrote to him to say that he was thoroughly unhappy with the fact that all circumstances cannot be taken into account. The Bill has also been attacked by Professor Michael Zander of the Runciman royal commission. One of the express reasons why the commission supported such an idea, however, was ensuring that all relevant matters were capable of being taken into account. If we have to take time to consider the Bill on the Floor of the House and in Committee, I hope that it will be examined with an open mind. I shall continue to oppose it root and branch as it is of no benefit whatever to the criminal justice system.
It constitutes a serious deprivation of one of our fundamental liberties—a liberty that goes back as far as the century after the Magna Carta, if not to the Magna Carta itself.

Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend may be disappointed to learn that he will not be able to discuss the Bill in Committee or on Report on the Floor of the House. I understand that the Government intend to table a motion to dispense with the Committee stage and with Report.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: If my hon. and learned Friend is right about that—I hope that the Minister will respond to that point—it shows the Government's complete disregard of democracy in this country. The Bill has been thrown out twice by the other place, which contains more Labour peers than ever before. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary know perfectly well that some of their most respected lawyers in the other place oppose the Bill. In those circumstances, it is disgraceful in constitutional terms for them to think it right to deal with a measure that removes the rights of private citizens by introducing it for a third time.
What shocks me most, however, is that the Home Secretary does not fully understand what the Bill covers. He sought to justify it by speaking about petty offences relating to Mars bars. Indeed, he used the Mars bar example on several occasions during his speech. I invite him to acquaint himself with the rights removed by the Bill. It removes the right to trial by jury with regard to the whole swathe of what are called either-way offences.
The document "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1998" contains 10 pages of either-way offences. I think that that will open a few eyes. The indictable-only offences cover only three pages. In the 10 pages of either-way offences, a mere petty theft offence can hardly be found. The pages cover offences as widespread as fraud, forgery, grievous bodily harm, wounding and the whole range of drug offences, from the most serious to mere possession. They also cover theft, violent disorder, the entire range of public order offences and of firearms offences, obscene publications offences and environmental protection offences. They cover more than 500 different offences for which the rights of the ordinary citizen to trial by jury are to be removed.

Mr. Lammy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Magna Carta and the 12th century. Does he accept that we are now in the 21st century? The Government have been encouraging people in communities such as mine to enter the justice system. My brother is going into the magistracy. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have no confidence in our magistrates and in people who are well equipped to take care of such matters?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I have great confidence in our magistrates. I grew up in a legal family. My stepmother was a magistrate and chair of the Bench for 25 years in Dacorum, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) well knows. Of course I have that confidence. However, the hon. Gentleman will also realise the quality of trial by jury. As my right hon. and learned


Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said, it provides the opportunity for proper disclosure, much better legal aid and a wider degree of defence.

Mr. David Taylor: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: No, not for the moment.
Trial by jury provides many more opportunities for careful trial. The important point is that there is confidence in the system as it currently stands. The examples given by the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South, on saving money undercut their case. Indeed, after we had dealt with the Bill in Committee last time round, the Minister of State said that he was not prepared to rely on saving money as a reason for introducing the measure. One wondered what the reason was. On analysis, there is no good reason for introducing the Bill. The money that the Government intend to save will supposedly come from shorter sentences—not for people who steal Mars bars, but for regular thieves who are currently receiving an average sentence of 10.9 months. They will supposedly—I find this supposition curious—be given sentences by the magistrates court averaging merely three and a half months. That is the most bogus sort of statistic that can be advanced to justify a Bill of this nature.
However, the Bill is more fundamental, which is why my references must extend through our history, to the middle ages and beyond. Our right to trial by jury confers the right not merely on the citizen, who may or may not be worthy of it, but on our communities at large to control and supervise our criminal justice system. That is an important democratic right. It applies whether or not the offence is serious, like the Ponting offence. It applies in respect of a comparatively trivial offence such as stealing a telephone call—an offence that arose in a case that I tried when I became an assistant recorder. The jury threw out the case. For the young man involved, the decision probably made the difference between a successful career in the hotel trade and the loss of that responsible career. However, the jury threw it out because, I suspect, they thought the charge was disproportionate.
In this democratic society, our criminal justice system is controlled by our democracy—by ordinary people through the little parliaments of the jury. As Lord Devlin rightly said, every jury is a little parliament. That is a tremendous foundation of our liberties. The Government are wrong to take that away, and we ask them to think again.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) will forgive me if I do not follow him in terms of subject matter, as I want to discuss the problem of crime in inner-city areas.
I am astonished that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who has a reputation for being a decent kind of Tory, does not understand the link between crime and the fundamentals that cause crime. Crime and the causes of crime, and the eradication thereof, involve a twin approach. Although serious crimes

are committed in my constituency, including murder, sadly, on a regular basis—it is almost always drug related—it is often the low-level anti-social crimes that disrupt the quality of life for many of my constituents. That is why I welcome those parts of the Queen's Speech that will combat anti-social and yobbish behaviour.
The other night, a constituent of mine whom I know came out of his home, which is close to the city centre of Manchester. He confronted a youth who was urinating on the street and who had obviously had a good night out drinking. When my constituent remonstrated in very mild terms—he explained that he and his neighbours lived nearby and that the youth's behaviour was not very decent—the youth and two friends beat up my constituent so severely that he was hospitalised.
I do not want to make a trivial point about the connection between crime and alcohol, other than to say that the climate of impunity around the use and abuse of alcohol in our city centres and elsewhere must be dealt with soon. I welcome the relevant provisions in the Queen's Speech, which begin to build on the other measures that the Government have taken, including anti-social behaviour orders and local area partnerships, which are beginning to build a new relationship between communities and the police.
Sadly, the reality is that in communities such as mine confidence in the police has been severely eroded in recent years. That is obviously partly because the police were confronted by a seemingly inexorable rise in crime. I am afraid that the previous Government deserve enormous discredit for that rise, which was built on the previous Government's incompetence not only in terms of the law and order agenda—although they were incompetent in that regard—but in terms of the agenda that includes issues such as work. The link between very high levels of unemployment, which were created by the previous Government, and criminal behaviour is obvious and immediate.
I am glad that unemployment has begun to fall under the present Government—that has had an impact on my constituency—but there has been no related or immediate ratcheting down of criminal behaviour. That will take considerably longer, as we begin to change the culture and climate in which we operate. We need to rebuild a sense of community in our society. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for his role in introducing anti-social behaviour orders, which have been tremendously important.
However, I issue a caution. I have said and will continue to say that my police force needs more constables and policemen on the beat and elsewhere. I have told the chief constable of Greater Manchester that he is responsible for ensuring that the inner city has a fairer share of the available resources. However, we must confront the way in which the police manage those resources internally.
In a recent case involving the first anti-social behaviour order in Manchester, the stipendiary magistrate granted anonymity to the relevant youths. The courts thereby let down the police and, more important, the community. In one example, an ASBO was breached. Although the police had been told by members of the community, including local councillors, that the young offender was in breach of the order, the police did not operate


effectively to bring that young person to justice. The police were not setting the standards that we expect, and which we are entitled to expect, from them—that is the only way to make the new compact with the public work.
Good developments are under way, including the sure start initiative in Manchester which is beginning to make a big difference. The local area partnership is an important part of the effort to rebuild the relationship and trust between the police and the local community.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) discussed the allocation of homes and properties. He raised a fundamental point. I hope that the Government will think hard about a proposal that is missing from the Queen's Speech and that, even at this late stage, we can have a rethink. I am referring to the way in which properties are let to different groups. That problem involves not the local authorities in my constituency but private landlords.
For example, in east Manchester there is a large new deal for communities project, which involves reinvestment in that community. That process is obviously undermined by criminal behaviour, which does much to deter people from repopulating the area and prevents them from regarding it as an area worth living in. A significant number of private landlords, but not all of them, are a major source of concern to local people because they persist in taking no responsibility for the behaviour and attitude of their tenants. A very limited number of people can do enormous damage to the fabric of the wider community—they can fundamentally disrupt the way of life of many people. It is therefore not unreasonable to say that we need tougher controls.
The time has come to examine whether we should license the private landlord sector. If landlords are not prepared to accept their responsibilities, we need powers to coerce them to do so. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will sympathise with my suggestion that private landlords who do not accept that duty should cease receiving the housing benefit on which many of them depend to make a profit. I urge those on the Government Front Bench seriously to consider legislation in that connection. If such a change is not introduced within a reasonable period—the demand for it in my constituency is enormous—we put at risk the gains that the Government's investment in this context is designed to secure.
There has been some discussion about the curfew, although that is an unfortunate term. Wiser counsels in the Chamber have referred instead to child protection. We should approach this debate from the perspective not of curfews but of protection. The concept of a curfew involves political difficulties and raises other more general problems for our society. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will ensure that a message is sent, making it clear that there is no generalised assault on young people. The approach does not involve saying that all young people in a particular area are inherently difficult or problem causing—that simply is not the case. In all areas, even those with high levels of criminality, there are young people who are an asset to society and who are an important part of the social cement that binds communities together.
I was at a pensioners do over the weekend and was gratified to see the work that the community and, in particular, the very young members of that community

put in to ensure that that group of pensioners had a good Christmas evening. Those young people might, in different circumstances—perhaps on street corners—have appeared to me and to other members of the community as individuals potentially capable of causing terror. The fact is that they are not—they are decent young people.
We should say loudly and clearly that most young people are an asset to society—they are the future on which we must build. It is important to get across the message, through the rhetoric of curfews or child protection, that there is no generalised attack on our young people.
Many hon. Members want to speak in this debate, so I shall conclude on this point. Of all the issues that affect my constituents, crime is probably high on the agenda. When I talk to them on the doorstep or when they write to me, they always demand that more should be done. The Home Secretary said that crime and disorder rates are still too high. We should be honest—I wish the Opposition would be a little more honest—and get away from the political rhetoric. The Conservatives had a terrible record for which they will not be forgiven. If we can establish that there is a demand for the rebuilding of communities to be the basis on which we attack the fundamentals of crime, we will be attacking crime and the causes of crime.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: No one in the House is in favour of high crime rates or communities being racked by disorder. The debate is about what measures, particularly in the Gracious Speech, would provide a better chance of reducing crime and enabling communities to live in a more orderly and stable fashion.
Last Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) pointed out:
The Queen's Speech said that the Government would combat crime and anti-social behaviour, and promised curfew orders.— [Official Report, 6 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 19.]
Those were the words of the first Queen's Speech of this Parliament in 1997—I share my right hon. Friend's sense of deja vu. The implication is that the Government have not made much progress in the intervening three years. I want to consider those issues from a constituency perspective.
I am happy—or at least I am content—that I no longer have to stand at the Dispatch Box volleying statistics back and forth, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the Home Secretary were doing earlier. However, I want to mention a couple of constituency-related statistics. The Audit Commission's performance indicators for Cambridgeshire show that in 1999–2000 the total number of crimes committed per 1,000 of the population was 95.5, which is an increase over the figure for 1998–99. The total number of violent crimes committed per 1,000 of the population was 9.8, which is also an increase on the figure for 1998–99. When I tell the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), that crime is rising in my constituency, I offer her the Audit Commission performance indicator statistics.
Another of those statistics caught my eye. The percentage of victims satisfied with the police's initial response to violent crime and burglary had decreased


from 1998–99. I hasten to add that that is not because the Cambridgeshire constabulary is not impressive, but because there are not enough police in the constabulary or on the beat. I recognise that the Government plan to spend more money on law and order next year. However, even with that expenditure, the Cambridgeshire constabulary will not reach its establishment level by the likely date of the next general election.
I shall not make a speech about resources. I have acknowledged that more will be provided, and I want to thank the Minister and the Home Secretary for recognising the case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and I have been making to them about one or two special policing pressures in Cambridgeshire. I do not expect the Minister to respond tonight; I merely want to encourage her to continue to think about those problems before the final figures for Cambridgeshire are announced.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has left the Chamber, because it was a bit like old times. In 1997, when I was at the Opposition Dispatch Box, he stood at the other one encouraging the Conservatives to support anti-social behaviour orders. At that time, I said that the Opposition were not against such orders in principle, but we thought that the Government were grossly overselling them and that they would be much more difficult to put in place than he was leading the House to believe.
On the ground that anti-social behaviour orders might turn out to be a good thing, I have constantly badgered Peterborough city council and the Cambridgeshire constabulary in Peterborough about the introduction of such orders. About 10 days ago, I received an interesting letter from a senior police officer enclosing a copy of the new draft protocol. That was in November 2000. The House will recall when that became the law of the land. The officer said:
The Home office has recently forwarded long awaited guidance on the protocols and procedures
for these orders. The guidance was issued in June 2000. That is more than two years after the legislation was enacted. The letter went on to say that the police are
concerned about the degree of evidence required when preparing an application and the fact that in many respects, the substantive offences of public order and criminal damage for example, may have been more straight forward to evidence.
It said that the police
look forward to receiving further legal advice once the outcome of
initial
court cases are known particularly about the degree of evidence required in practice.
The senior police officer cited a case of two youths who were to be pursued with an anti-social behaviour order. They went to court on 5 October, and they went back to court on 2 November, on 21 November and on 1 December. I have to tell the Minister that there has still not been an anti-social behaviour order issued in that part of my constituency. I shall not take lectures from the Home Secretary about supporting anti-social behaviour orders. We would be interested to see whether they actually work, but they have not worked in Peterborough. The police and the council together have not been able to make them work. That is a disgrace, because it is more

than two years after the event. It is particularly disgraceful given the rhetoric that accompanied the introduction of these orders. It is no wonder that the Home Secretary was sheepish when he said that there had been 140 such orders throughout the whole of the country.
Something caught my eye in The Hunts Post, the local paper. An article on 29 November stated:
The Home Office has ordered police forces to compile regular crime updates for people living in rural areas.
The failure of anti-social behaviour orders and this new bureaucratic encouragement sums up the Government. People in the rural parts of my constituency know about crime first hand because they are the victims of it. They know about the fear of crime because they live with it. They see police being diverted from rural areas into the towns and into the city of Peterborough.

Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: No. I am sorry, but I have only a limited time.
Despite all the community efforts—neighbourhood watch, farm watch and all the rest of it—people know that the real problem is resources. What my constituents want is not more statistics but more action.
When we considered the legislation that introduced anti-social behaviour orders, I asked the Home Secretary whether the Government would legislate to stop the practice of prostitutes' cards being plastered all over the phone boxes of London. I did so with the support of Westminster city council. The Minister may remember that I handed a number of those cards to the Home Secretary across the Dispatch Box—they were safely in an envelope. In his response, the Home Secretary told the House that he would act swiftly. He and I agreed that this practice needed to be made illegal.
I was grateful for a letter that I received this very week from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). He said that he was writing to me because I had an interest in the matter, and added:
As you will be aware, I announced on 9th June that we—
the Government—
would develop detailed proposals for a new criminal offence.
That date—9 June—was the best part of three years after the Home Secretary had told me that the situation was a disgrace and that the Government would act immediately.
The Minister of State wrote that a consultation period had followed, and ended by telling me:
We are keen to make progress.
Where have I heard that phrase before? Like most of my constituents, I have no idea whether what is proposed in the Gracious Speech will make any significant difference, but I, and they, have a perfect right to be sceptical. We have heard all this before, time and again, in overblown rhetoric—and overblown rhetoric to which Ministers' attention was drawn at the time.
The proposed Bills reflect Government failure, not Government success, and that is how they will be understood come 5 April or 3 May. I ask the Minister to start getting serious about translating into action in my constituency some of the promises that the Government have made.

Mr. John Robertson: As my predecessor said in his maiden speech,
It is with some trepidation that I find myself on my feet at this early stage.
I find the experience just as daunting as he did back in 1966, but, as he did, I will
take my courage in both hands and rely on … traditional tolerance.—[Official Report, 4 May 1966; Vol. 727, c. 1686–7.]
Donald Dewar was a great man. He has secured his place in history as the architect of the first elected Parliament in Scotland for 300 years. I know that Opposition Members held him in just as high esteem as his hon. Friends. We shall all miss him, and the House will be a poorer place for his passing. The people of Anniesland will also miss him. When I was campaigning in the by-election, I was repeatedly told, "He will be a hard act to follow." He certainly will.
Donald stood for many things, but his lasting legacy will be his endless work to achieve social justice for all, regardless of their ethnic, religious or social background. No one can fill his shoes, but I will try to walk in his footsteps. He was one of a kind, and will be remembered by many as a man of high ideals and principles. The recent by-election was perhaps not as memorable as the one that he fought in 1978. That was a turning point in Scottish politics. The nationalists were riding high until that by-election in Garscadden, but they never recovered from the defeat and as a result Scotland can be said to have been Labour to this day.
The Anniesland by-election a few weeks ago may not have the same lasting effect as that in Garscadden, but time will tell. It certainly dented SNP morale, and I hope it will be the platform for a famous Labour victory in Falkirk, West next week.
Like Donald, I can say that Glasgow is my home. In fact, I was born in the constituency—more years ago than I care to remember—and I live there now. I am proud to be a Glaswegian, and to be the representative of Anniesland in the House.
The area of Anniesland is not known for its scenery or architecture, but, as someone who has spent most of his life there, I have always found that it is the people who make the difference. They are without doubt the friendliest, most fair-minded and politest of people and, despite the many problems they have experienced, I hold them in the highest esteem. I would submit them for comparison with people anywhere in the country.
The people of Anniesland have many different backgrounds and social standards, but whether they come from Drumchapel, Yoker, Knightswood, Blairdardie, Anniesland, Kelvindale or Jordanhill, I shall be honoured to represent them.
The issues raised during the by-election were, in my opinion, those that will be raised at the next general election: pensions, the health service, education, jobs, housing and social justice. There was a general feeling that the Government had done a good job on all fronts. Although there was a low turnout of 38.5 per cent., a colleague said—and I feel that he hit the nail on the head—that the only time there was a high turnout at a by-election was when a highly unpopular Government or a popular Opposition were in place. As Labour won well over 50 per cent. of the votes, neither must be the case. The result appears to support my colleague's opinion.
The constituency of Glasgow, Anniesland has one of the highest proportions of over-60s in the country—31.4 per cent. Thanks to the present Government, they are better off to the tune of £5 for single pensioners and £8 for pensioner couples from next April. Moreover, we should not forget the £200 winter fuel allowance that they have just received, and the free television licences for over-75 s.
Health is important to everyone, but to the elderly in particular. I was happy to see the promise of extra investment in the Queen's Speech, and the commitment to modernising health care. That shows Labour's continued commitment to the NHS.
Unemployment in Anniesland is higher than the national average, but, thanks to the present Government, it has fallen by nearly 14 per cent. in the past three years. Since the new deal started in April 1998 more than 1,100 young people have started on the programme; 437 have found work through it and 390 have gained work experience or training through new deal options.
I was extremely pleased to see other excellent proposed legislation in the Queen's Speech, which will be of interest to the people of Anniesland. I believe that the criminal justice and police Bill, which we have been discussing, will help to solve the problem of young people making a nuisance of themselves. The only thing that I would ask for is extra money to allow local councils to invest in facilities to keep those young people interested in matters other than vandalism and crime in general. Keeping the young off the streets is only part of what is needed.
The Hunting Bill is another measure that is long overdue, and I shall be happy to make my vote count. My main thanks, however, must go to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has managed the country's finances with an even hand. He has made it possible for us to give increases to pensioners and to raise spending on the health service, as well as putting the economy in a position that enables us to bring down unemployment and maintain low inflation. As they say in Scotland, he is a canny Scot, and I am sure that the next Finance Bill will continue the good work.
All that legislation and more will be well received by the people of Anniesland. However, although I am happy with the content of the Queen's Speech, I would like to see more radical legislation in future to meet the needs of the elderly and the unemployed in particular and, in general, the needs of those who look to a Labour Government to give the helping hand that our opponents refuse. I have already mentioned extra money for councils to use for youth projects and I would particularly like help to be provided in educating the young on the misuse of drugs, and a way to be found of communicating to them the harm that they do themselves.
I believe that the Government have done well in the past three years. With a stable economy, we are now seeing the benefits of good, sound management. The moneys given to health, education and employment, social services and pensioners have shown who really cares about the people of this country. The fact that unemployment has fallen so sharply, and the introduction of the minimum wage, back that up. Some years ago, I remember, people—including some Opposition Members—were saying that the minimum wage would increase joblessness. How wrong could they have been?


I hope that the Chancellor can do more in the years ahead, and that the minimum wage will be increased by well in excess of inflation—but only if the country can afford it. In the words of a now famous song, things can only get better.
In closing this, my first speech in the House, let me say again what an honour it is to serve the people of Glasgow, Anniesland. I give my word that I will do my best to achieve all that is expected of a Labour Member of Parliament. I will always have an open door to those people, and an open mind to policies that seek to improve their lives. I will try to ensure that Donald Dewar's legacy of social justice for all, no matter who they are or their walk of life, is continued.
I thank hon. Members for their tolerance.

Mr. Tony Baldry: May I be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson) on his maiden speech? As he rightly said, his predecessor was regarded with great respect and affection in the House and outside. He is and will continue to be sadly missed. Having heard the hon. Gentleman's comments, I am sure that he will be listened to with interest and respect whenever he is fortunate enough to catch the Speaker's eye.
My constituency surgery last Friday began with a lady to whom I will refer as Mrs. A. She expressed concern that her young son, who is 14, had been walking home from school in October when he had been set upon by two youths, one aged 14 and the other 15, and for no apparent reason beaten up. She said that what was particularly horrifying about the attack was that the assailants had deliberately sought to cause the maximum injury to her young son's head—to cause the maximum pain, but with the minimum visible bruising.
Mrs. A went to the police. Her son was seen by a surgeon and was photographed. Statements were taken. The assailant was well known: her son knew who it was and the police knew who it was. That was October. In the middle of December, she does not know what has happened in that case, whether the youth has been charged or whether he has been taken to court. She has heard no more from the police.
A little later in my surgery, a couple came to see me. I shall refer to them as Mr. and Mrs. B. They live on the same housing estate in Banbury. They are public-spirited people who act as foster parents. They had bought their foster child a bicycle. That foster child, who is also 14, had been riding on the estate when he had been attacked suddenly by the same youth. He had been beaten up and his new bicycle had been damaged.
Mr. and Mrs. B told me that the youth was well known to them, too. He was frequently seen driving around the estate in a motor car, or riding speed bicycles around the estate. He had vandalised their garden and broken down their fence. He was well known to the police and had caused much difficulty to a lot of people.
Mr. and Mrs. B had come to see me because they were particularly upset. They had just heard from the police that the Crown Prosecution Service had advised that no proceedings should be taken against that youth as, ultimately, it had been decided that it was their foster child's word against the youth's word.
It was the same assailant in both cases. The attacks happened on one housing estate in Banbury, which could not be more middle England. What was particularly disconcerting was that Oxfordshire social services, which had placed the foster child with the foster parents, advised that it would be inappropriate to place any other foster children with them for the time being because they could not provide a safe environment. If a safe environment in which to bring up children cannot be provided in housing estates in Banbury, something serious is happening.
When I took the matter up with the local police, I was told by Inspector Choudhary of Thames Valley police Banbury sector:
It is true to say over the past few months the levels of policing in the Ruscote area have not been as we would have all liked, but this was due to a number of abstractions from the team that deals with that area. I can assure you that this situation will be resolved as I have made changes to the shift patterns of the officers who patrol Ruscote area and as of January far greater police presence will be visible.
People living in Ruscote and Banbury want policemen on the beat now. They do not want to have to wait until January, but I suspect that the situation will get worse, rather than better. For the first time in the 17 years that I have been an hon. Member, I and other parliamentary colleagues in the Thames valley have been written to by the chief constable of Thames Valley in these terms:
I am writing … to tell you that, from the latest examination of our recruitment and retention figures, it is clear that the situation is getting significantly worse. We have already lost 90 officers so far this year from April-October through transfer or resignation, whilst normally we would expect to lose no more than 40 in a full year. Recruiting too has become far more difficult.
Currently, the vacancies are being held at the centre … but it is only a short time before these vacancies will be felt on police areas—especially those in the south east of the force where I have most difficulty with retention.
There are many more applications
for resignation
in the pipeline and there is no doubt that we are seeing the start of a significant exodus of officers from this force due to high housing costs … These trends are also accompanied by the fact that we are finding it more and more difficult to recruit replacements.
No wonder the Oxford Mail carries headlines such as
Thin blue line gets thinner.
Inspector Martin Elliott, who represents the Police Federation locally, said:
What was a very thin blue line on the streets is now not even thin, it's dotted. This is a crisis—we will lose more officers this year than we will take on.
Assistant Chief Constable Paul West said:
We have lost more than double what we would normally experience.
The Police Federation has put a lot of the blame for the staffing crisis in the Thames valley on the lack of a rent allowance to offset high living costs in the area and on the fact that many officers recruited in the last big drive are reaching retirement age.
I, too, share the view that it is pointless ping-ponging statistics across the Dispatch Box, but we have a problem on the ground in the Thames valley. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will listen to the case that has been put by the chief constable for a housing allowance for officers in the Thames valley. Otherwise, we will have a serious situation.
In relation to curfew orders, David Marchant, secretary of the Thames Valley Police Federation, said:
We've not got the officers to enforce the current laws of the land at the moment, without imposing new ones.
There is no point in the Government introducing further criminal justice legislation if the police officers are not in place to enforce existing legislation.
My other concern is in relation to anti-social behaviour orders. One would have thought that the youth who appears to have brutally attacked two young people on the Ruscote housing estate and to have created considerably more mayhem on the estate was an ideal candidate for an anti-social behaviour order. However, for whatever reason, I have been told by Superintendent Reeve and Grahame Handley, chief executive of Cherwell district council, that when they sought the advice of the clerk to the justices of North Oxfordshire magistrates they were told that his advice to magistrates would be that, unless it was a persistent offender, an anti-social behaviour order should not be granted.
Corroboration for that came to me today in a letter from the chief executive of Banbury Homes, which has much of the social housing in Banbury. He wrote about some evictions that it had succeeded in obtaining against some anti-social tenants on another housing estate in Banbury. His letter states:
We are also dependent on the co-operation from the Courts in order to consider Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, and in the Banbury area we have been advised that such co-operation will not be forthcoming.
The Secretary of State said that, in his view, Oxfordshire magistrates had misdirected themselves on anti-social behaviour orders. All I know is that the Home Office has responsibility for issuing guidance to magistrates courts on such orders. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has been in place for more than two years. It is incredible that, in my area, not a single anti-social behaviour order has been issued and that, throughout the country, only 140 have been issued. If that legislation is to work, surely the Home Office should seek to discover from magistrates courts, the Magistrates Association, the police and local authorities why they are not making more use of legislation that the House passed at the beginning of the Parliament. If they do not make greater use of it, all the new legislation is simply posturing. When the Government say that they will bear down on yobbish behaviour, it is simply posturing if they do not also provide sufficient police numbers to police our streets and ensure that the magistrates courts effectively implement legislation that has already been passed by the House.
On Third Reading of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), said:
The fact that these debates have taken place will assist us in ensuring that the guidance offered to the courts on the use of anti-social behaviour orders is precise.—[Official Report, 23 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 871.]
What has happened in my patch is precisely nothing, and it is time that that changed. I do not believe in demonising young people, and I firmly support the work of organisations such as the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. I also think that, whenever possible, one should seek alternatives to custody for young people, and that the work of groups

such as NCH Action for Children on replacements for custody is excellent. However, I also think that we have to recognise that, sometimes, there are persistent young offenders who cause a disproportionate amount of mayhem in our communities.
The House has a duty to those communities to ensure that there are sufficient police numbers and that the courts have sufficient powers to deal with those young people. Unless the Government are prepared to do that, all the measures in the Queen's Speech on law and order are simply posturing.

Mr. Harold Best: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson) on an excellent maiden speech—well done.
So far, the debate has dealt only with crime, whereas the annunciator says that it is about home affairs and inner cities. I should like to talk a little about inner cities, perhaps establishing a precedent that other hon. Members will follow. I shall also deal specifically with the matter of universities located in inner-city areas and the recent explosive unplanned growth in the number of houses in multiple occupation—which most people know as HMOs.
The fact that a growing proportion of our population needs short-term lets which can be found in HMOs is not disputed. Demand is especially keen among the younger population of single people and couples living together in short-term lets. Such housing suits their life style and needs, as it does those of modern industry, inner-city universities, and commerce generally. The need for "flexible" labour sources is reflected in the amount of temporary accommodation for young people who are in the process of acquiring a degree and those who have short-term contracts in the labour market.
There are serious concerns about the problems associated with HMOs, such as their quality, potential extra fire risks and generally low standards. The Government's stated intention to legislate to raise safety standards and improve the general quality of such housing stock is—to say the least—welcome. However, I was very disappointed that the need for such special legislation was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. Such legislation would have been very welcome as a long overdue attempt to improve the lot of tenants in HMOs and—just as important—the lot of those who comprise the long-term residential communities in properties adjoining universities in our inner cities.
Today, I wish to draw to the House's attention a specific use—or, more accurately, misuse—of current housing stock, which has led to serious damage to well-established family housing stock and to the natural living communities in and around our two inner-city universities in Leeds. I shall speak about the specific area that I have been elected to represent. Hon. Members may also know a part of my constituency—Headingley, which is now known not only for its cricket and rugby facilities but for its HMOs. Last year, it had a 52 per cent. turnover in its electoral register. It is a seriously destabilised community.
Sometimes, it seems that there is a grim determination abroad not to understand an argument that has been made very many times to universities, local government and the national Government about the form and nature of the


damage caused in inner cities by the explosion in the number of HMOs in university areas such as those in Leeds. It is devastating to witness at close quarters the process of destruction of a community caused by the number of HMOs.
"Term-time only" use of HMOs causes houses owned and managed by private landlords to be used only seasonally. Such use has a very simple purpose and effect: to remove vast sums from those areas. HMOs are like giant pumps sucking out not only money, but complex community stability that took generations to build. They also seriously damage the physical and cultural amenities that are usually found in warm, self-sustaining communities.
Such communities should contain, for example, a mix of small shops that trade year-round, not only seasonally. One manifestation of the change in Headingley was the loss of a very famous small family run toy shop called Pumpkin Corner. The reduction in the number of families in the area has resulted in there being fewer children there. If there are no children, there is no need for a specialist toy shop. Although loss of the shop has perhaps not caused significant damage to the local community, such losses are suffered time and again.
The notion has been floated in some circles that it would be helpful to develop voluntary links with the student housing sector, and particularly with some of the private landlords. However, the idea that that will slow down the process of community impoverishment, let alone preventing the untrammelled so-called market forces that are now at work from destroying larger parts of our inner-city areas, is simply fanciful and manifestly not true.
We need responsibility for the defence of our communities to be taken by our elected local and national government. We need action to ensure the defence and retention of inner-city areas for the year-round housing of needy families and first-time buyers—who are now priced out of the market—rather than the transformation of areas surrounding our inner-city areas into barren transit camps. Such a process is currently under way in those areas. It is being participated in unwillingly by the good landlords, and uncaringly by short-term and profiteering landlords. The need for greater provision of safe and good-quality accommodation for the student population is not being dealt with by the current process of unmanaged market forces.
Sadly, not only the Government but the universities have been found wanting in the matter. In Leeds, the universities' behaviour towards the community who supported them for generations has been found seriously wanting. They have shown at best an ineffectual concern, and at worst a betrayal of the support that they have received from local communities, on which any continuing mutually beneficial economic and social relationship depends. They have betrayed the community.
The expansion of student numbers in higher education is, to put it mildly, a laudable policy objective, and it is being achieved. The objective would be especially laudable if the numbers reflected a large increase in students from social classes 3, 4 and 5. I look forward to such change. Meanwhile, however, students who live in areas where there are many HMOs for term-time only use

are often themselves the victims not only of the worst excesses of a free-market housing policy, but of the area's increasing crime.
The types of crime mentioned in today's debate are occurring in and around those university areas. Such areas always contain a young population who have constantly to relearn the lessons of history. As the student population in such areas is replenished annually, the areas have a permanently renewed youthfulness that never matures.
The supporters of unfettered free-market forces were right about the market providing—it provided substandard accommodation for large numbers of students, and not just in Leeds. The same free market also failed—and fails—to invest in new housing stock. It is important to acknowledge that we all seek good-quality and safe living conditions for the overwhelming number of students who live in the inner-city areas of Leeds. The free market economy wants a guaranteed profit—that is, guaranteed through a public support of education. It is a common trait, which has become manifest in other former public sector industries, leading to all kinds of failures and human disasters.
I am told that in the southern end of Headingley, there are more than 1,000 so-called empty beds in HMOs. That part of my constituency is becoming steadily impoverished. The poor quality of the provision and its continuing decline means that neither students' parents nor the students themselves wish them to live in such poor conditions. As a result, there is a growing dereliction created by the profit-farming landlords. It reminds me of the dustbowl farmers of the American mid-west in the 1920s and 1930s—pillaging the land, profiting and moving on to pastures new for even greater profits. Local government has found this unplanned-for growth in HMOs irresistible, as it has not had the powers to stop it. The evidence of such growth is before our very eyes, and its predicted spread is taking place.
One consequence of the expansion of these transit camps and empty beds is a dramatic drop in the family occupation. It is not a question of losing one family shop; there is a serious threat to schools in the areas damaged by the growth in HMOs. At least two primary schools in my constituency are experiencing serious difficulties related to the fall in numbers of primary school-aged children. One of those schools is just 10 years old. It was built when the demographics showed a secure, continuous supply of young children.
The Government's stated policy of recovering inner-city areas for reoccupation by long-term residents is working in parts in Leeds—for example, in the riverside developments in the centre. However, such developments are not occupied by young families working in the shops, offices and call centres. They are moving out of the city centre—first-time buyers have no chance of buying a city-centre property.
The pressure that that puts on greenbelt land is understood, but it also adds enormously to the polluting effect and the CO2, level. The so-called rush hour is now 12 hours long. That kind of pressure means that Headingley lane has the dubious claim of being the second most polluted road in Leeds.
In one way, managing the unparalleled growth in student numbers is wonderful—it is what we all want. The growth in the educational process is, from my perspective, as essential to the nation's health as the national health


service. In fact, the NHS depends on it. However, I am concerned that we are in danger of destroying the very centres—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. Sir Paul Beresford.

Sir Paul Beresford: It is helpful to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best). He started the debate on the inner cities, which seems to have slipped as the lawyers have pounded their Benches. [Interruption.] "Spoken as someone who is not a lawyer" might be a better way of putting it.
When I dashed home last Wednesday and turned on "Newsnight", I heard the Home Secretary being interviewed. I did not hear him very clearly, but I thought that he was talking about the inner cities again. He said, if I heard him correctly, that he put all the blame—or a considerable proportion of it—for the state of the inner cities on what happened in the 1980s. That is rubbish.
When I arrived in this country in the early 1970s, I worked in the east end of London. I can tell the Home Secretary that the state of the east end of London then was deplorable. The state of housing—almost entirely council housing—was shocking, as were the streets and transport. The atmosphere and environment appalled me.
Over the years, I have regularly visited many of the estates in that area and in south London. Many have improved—equally, many are still absolutely appalling. One—the North Peckham estate—has been featured recently because of that awful, awful incident. I used to know the North Peckham estate quite well from a number of visits.
There have been successes, which have been largely brought about by co-operation. I do not know of the Cardiff example that was mentioned, but that sounded as though it resulted from a similar approach. By co-operation, I mean co-operation between the community, the Government—to a degree—the local authority, the police, the faith communities and the private sector. I believe that the private sector is key.
My reason for saying that derives from my shock when I became a Conservative councillor in south-west London and looked at some of the estates there. They were absolutely disgusting. Anyone who has been on a train leaving Victoria station going towards Clapham junction will see, as they go across the river, a highly coloured, novel estate—post-war, modern build. In 1978, and for a year or two afterwards, the crime level on that estate was so high that the police only went there multiple-handed, frequently carrying arms. It was a no-go area. Taxis would stop outside and let their passengers out. People walking there had to go in pairs, looking out in case something was dropped on them from above. In the case of a local policeman, it was a Ford Cortina gearbox. I suspect that that "Ford Cortina" ages me somewhat.
That estate has changed completely because of co-operation between the community, both inside and outside the estate. It has changed largely because of the private sector, but even more important has been home ownership. The right to buy turned that estate around. About 55 per cent. or 60 per cent. has now been sold. There is a pride in that community; the crime level on the estate is now so low that it does not have a closed circuit television camera.
Many of these ideas were used up and down the borough. Most of the estates, if not all of them, changed fairly rapidly as the environment changed. Again, that was largely due to our getting the private sector to work for the public sector—collecting rubbish, cleaning the streets, maintaining street lighting and removing the graffiti. We introduced ideas that were new then—we may have been the first borough in the country to use CCTV. There were other things such as building out crime, using colour, cleaning up the parks and introducing park police. One helpful factor was the abolition of the Greater London council. [Interruption.] I hear deep breaths being drawn.
In those days, the GLC was the most interfering, difficult body that any local authority could suffer in London; it either slowed progress or wrecked it. In addition, the Inner London education authority was abolished. Under ILEA, education in inner London was appalling. Its standards were either the worst or the second worst for the whole of its life, but its expenditure and cost to the nation and the people was far an away the greatest.
Perhaps the biggest change, especially in those times, was the fact that Wandsworth was determined to work in co-operation with the police. In those days, the GLC had a police committee, which was effectively an anti-police committee. All the left-wing local authorities—there were quite a few then—had anti-police committees, and the police received no co-operation from the local authorities that needed to co-operate. It was not just a matter of money, bearing in mind that that authority consistently—under whatever Government—received either the second lowest or lowest external grant, but managed, by using decent services, not to penalise its local people, consistently asking them for the lowest rates, poll tax or council tax.
Despite the fact that there is no boundary around the area—other than that drawn on a map—the result was that people liked the authority. The community came with it, preferring good services at the lowest cost. People had been moving out of the area, but they have now moved back; it has become a desirable place to live. Education in the area has improved and there are new schools, new Church schools and new city technology colleges. Competition between the schools has become co-operation. Education in the area has a long way to go, but it is on the way.
In 1978, Wandsworth started on a par with Lambeth, Hackney and Haringey, but there is now a huge difference between them, which results from their different attitudes. As I said, this is not a matter of money because, after all, Wandsworth's total external support is £756 per head and the band-D council tax is £401 this year, whereas—I have mentioned the North Peckham estate—Southwark receives a grant of £1,093 per head but soaks its local people at band-D of £845. Other factors must be considered, such as the different policies of those councils.
As the lawyers were hammering on the Benches earlier, I shall compare crime in Southwark and Wandsworth. It is not good in either authority. I understand that last year there were 600 violent incidents and 500 drug offences in Wandsworth, but there were 1,500 violent crimes and 1,639 drug offences in Southwark. That is reflected in what has gone on in that authority. I wonder what Southwark did, or did not do.
In the early days, Southwark fought the right to buy, tooth and nail. Those who bought their homes were squeezed with extra on-costs. The authority fought the use of the private sector. Even when compulsory competitive tendering was introduced, it continued to use its notorious in-house, poor-quality and expensive services. So its council estates were in poor repair and heavily squatted. They had filthy streets and graffiti everywhere. Maintenance was poor in general. There were drug addicts at every turn; litter and used syringes on every corridor; and old sofas and burnt-out cars throughout the estates. I remember walking through them. Of course, Southwark was politically correct—in education with bog-standard comprehensives and with continued poor co-operation with the police.
Even today, many local authorities fight working with the police and the private sector. For example, Southwark is carrying out many major works and has an in-house engineering team, but there is not a single qualified engineer—I mean one who has a degree—in the whole team and the authority will not use the private sector if it can possibly help it.
I turn now to the Queen's Speech and what this Government have done to help. They have not really helped. They have cut the right-to-buy discount, so people are persuaded that home ownership is not for them. They have introduced best value. Best value involves loads of consultations and reams of consultation documents, which has produced consultation fatigue. It also involves benchmarking groups between local authorities—the awful compared with the appalling. They have talked about beacon boroughs, but an authority can only become one if it is politically correct—never mind the service. Costs arise especially as there are armies of auditors in the Audit Commission being fed on tons of papers, collected by armies of council bureaucrats. There is no best value in that. The aim of best value was to cut out the necessity to use the private sector, so there is a return to in-house teams and standards drop. The Government have introduced a new scrutiny system, but it enables incompetent authorities to hide their incompetence.
I have spent 21 days during the past few months with the Metropolitan police. I have never seen a more demoralised force in my life. It is absolutely pushed to the limit. The figures for the police force in Wandsworth for March 1997 show that it had 596 officers; that figure has now dropped to 570. The figures for Southwark for 1997 show that it had 861 officers; that number has now dropped to 821.
To make matters worse for Metropolitan police officers, they are running round with best value strung round their necks, having to produce figures for auditors—with an unbelievable 59 targets to try to meet—rather than getting on with constructive policing. The Government have also created a Mayor and the Greater London Authority, which have added to costs.
The inner cities need pragmatism from the experience of success. They are not getting that; they are getting the knee-jerk dogma of those who have failed.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I say to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) that I do not intend to rise to some of his more controversial comments about the GLC? I merely point out that its abolition was opposed consistently by a great majority of Londoners; it was an act of political vandalism that owed everything to ideology and nothing to the sort of local government efficiencies about which he was talking.
I welcome the proposals on home affairs in the Gracious Speech. Many political journalists mocked the legislative programme that we have introduced, but I would expect them to do so. Most political journalists have no great connection with the realities of street life, such as that in the area of London that I represent. Indeed, the most dangerous thing that most political journalists experience is being hit by a wayward champagne cork at a good dinner.
I listened to yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the Nice summit. There has been enormous concentration—on television and in the media—on the euro, national vetoes and qualified majority voting, which are all very significant subjects. However, not one person has ever stopped me on the streets of West Ham to talk about national vetoes, the euro or QMV. They are not subjects of debate for my constituents. I am not saying that they are unimportant, but they are not the kind of thing about which the people whom I represent are overly concerned. That is not surprising. When I listened to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, even he did not seem to know what those issues were all about. That was certainly the impression that he gave. Those are not the issues discussed by the people I mix with in the pubs in my constituency.
Much of the talk in my constituency is about the very issues that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to in his speech. I want the Labour party to make law and order a central part of our election strategy. Of course it will be electorally popular because it is socially necessary. Any party that could guarantee safe streets would win an election hands down. However, it is not possible to give a cast-iron guarantee of safe seats [HON. MEMBERS: "Safe streets."] Yes, safe streets, but I am very glad to say that I have a safe seat. I hope that all my colleagues feel the same about their constituencies. They certainly look safer by the day, when we consider the performance of the Leader of the Opposition.
There are many things that we can do to make our streets safer, such as providing more police, more CCTV cameras, more information hotlines and, of course, better street lighting. However, the most important thing that we need to do is to mobilise our local communities. Peer pressure is the strongest pressure needed to cut crime in our areas.
I have not lost sight of the need to deal with the causes of crime. There is little point in addressing the symptoms and ignoring the causes. However, I must make an important point. One understands that unemployment, poor education, bad housing and a lack of facilities can generate crime, but none of those factors excuses crime.
I had a pretty bad experience in my constituency recently. It was certainly the most dangerous—although not the first—incident that has happened to me in 17 years of representing the area. Ironically, it took place on the


eve of the "Respect" campaign that was being launched by the local authority in Forest Gate. Indeed, it is a very good local authority, which was voted council of the year in 2000. If the incident demonstrated anything, it was that there is a need for respect on the streets of Forest Gate—certainly, as far as the local Member is concerned.
As I left Forest Gate station, I was trailed by four yobs who assaulted me. A knife was held in my side and I was robbed. At that point, I did not want to hear about their personal problems or to be told that they were the real victims. What I wanted was a posse of police to come screaming down the road to give them all a good truncheoning. Unfortunately, that did not happen and I was deprived of 50 or 60 quid. I was, and remain, very angry, but I am looking on the bright side—at least I will not have to canvass those yobs; I have worked out that I can mark them down as Labour doubtfuls, assuming that we ever find out where they live.
The incident received a great deal of national publicity because it involved a Member of Parliament. If that helps the community and the authorities to focus attention on the problems of street safety, it will have been a worthwhile experience, but not one that I would wish to repeat every week. The reaction to my experience was interesting. All too many of my constituents have had similar experiences, but they do not get the coverage that I received. A large number of people have written to me, sent me cards and stopped me on the street to express concern. Every child in a class in Selwyn road primary school, which I had recently visited, wrote me a lovely letter with a picture. It was very touching. Interestingly, the letters revealed that one in three of all those kids in a primary school in the east end had experienced a similar incident through a member of their family.
We have to wake up to that fact. Such a crime focuses the attention of people who have experienced it. I exchanged a few jokes with Harry Redknapp, the manager of West Ham, when he saw me coming out of the ground. He asked whether I wanted him to walk me home so that I would be safe. I said, "I think I can survive, Harry. I might run into a few Chelsea supporters, so it's best you don't walk with me." Then he said, "My mother is frightened to go out after dark." When it gets dark at a quarter to four in the afternoon, many of our elderly citizens are imprisoned indoors. That is an appalling indictment of what is happening in our communities.
The response and follow-up actions of the police at Forest Gate and Plaistow stations were superb, but the uncomfortable fact remains that in an area such as mine, the police simply do not have the resources to deal with the amount of street crime that they face. It is not a party political issue; it should unite us across the whole House because all our communities suffer from the effects of street crime.
I asked for a snapshot of an eight-hour period of duty in Newham in my constituency for Friday 8 December. There were three unexpected deaths—a two-day-old baby was found in Newham college and the bodies of a 17-year-old and a 20-year-old were found within three hours in Winsor terrace in south Newham—and a security guard was stabbed in McDonald's on Barking road. Those events were in addition to normal policing. There were also seven robberies, a number of burglaries and 45 motor offences in those 24 hours, and there have been 24 murders in Newham since December 1999.
Having said that, it is interesting to see that crime in Newham is falling this year as a result of close co-operation between the London borough of Newham, the police and local communities. However, as the regeneration of the community is extended through City airport, the Exel exhibition centre and the new university, more demands will be put on our police force. The Home Office must recognise that. On the current method of allocation, we are 70 police officers short and the force is desperately trying to recruit.
The vast majority of my constituents are decent and law-abiding, but there is a sizeable number of criminals and anti-social yobs who must be dealt with. I know that I speak with the full authority of the great majority of my decent constituents in the east end in saying that we want the Government to pursue their initiatives and to ensure that the police are given adequate resources in order to turn such good initiatives into reality on the ground. We can pass as many laws and initiate as many different schemes as we like, but unless we give the police resources to effect those laws and schemes, we shall leave ourselves open to ridicule and criticism.
I should like to make two suggestions in conclusion. First, I believe that most street crime is associated with drugs. It is so easy to get drugs on the streets of my constituency. People are openly rolling spliffs on street corners. I have consistently argued that the war against drugs is simply not being won. If a strategy for war is not working, it is best to try to change that strategy rather than persist with it. I firmly believe that we should decriminalise the personal use of cannabis and set up a commission of inquiry into the legalisation of all drugs. [Interruption.] It is an interesting and controversial point, but we should at least be prepared to consider it. If we were to decriminalise certain categories of drugs, it would lead to the most dramatic fall in criminal activity in this country in peacetime.
Secondly, we in this House do not fully understand the yob culture. Many factors have led to the yob mentality, and they are attitudinal as well as social. We should consider a compulsory scheme of national community service. I shall develop that point at some other time—obviously, not in this debate. I have not turned into some Colonel Blimp from Tunbridge Wells, I just think that we should look radically at what is going on in our society and come up with some radical solutions.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). Either he is getting wiser in his old age or I am going soft in the head, because I confess that I agreed with a great deal of what he said. It is refreshing for a Member to bring original thinking and some passion to the House. We all share in his tribulation with the yobs. He experienced what so many of our fellow citizens have had to put up with, and I salute his courage.
I know that others want to speak, so I shall try to be brief. I want to make three key points. The first does not concern the principal subject that we are debating, but we are entitled in debates on the Queen's Speech to discuss other matters. I want to put on record that I am concerned about the proposal in the Gracious Speech that
A Bill will be drafted to provide for safer travel on the railways, in the air, at sea and on the roads.


I record for the benefit of Government Front Benchers that the air accidents investigation branch is in Farnborough in my constituency. It is respected throughout the world for its professionalism and technical expertise. I do not wish the Government to take any measure that would impair the working of that organisation. Please leave it alone; leave it to be independent.
I turn to the issues specifically before us. The Home Secretary tried to paint far too rosy a picture of the Government's achievements since the election. The figures do indeed speak for themselves. I cannot conceive how the Government can possibly hope to present a credible picture on police recruitment. The Home Secretary told us earlier that he wants 9,000 extra police by 2003. However, on the basis of figures with which he has provided us, we are already 2,700 or 3,000 short, so reaching the figure that he suggests does not seem realistic. Even if we were to recruit such numbers, where would we find the capacity to train them? I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), has heard from the Manchester area, whose bid for 30 recruits was cut back because training places are not available. It is therefore not possible to achieve those figures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke about difficulties, and I wish to draw the attention of the House to those faced in Hampshire, which are the same as those in the Thames valley and Oxfordshire. Recently, there was a meeting of 700 members of the Police Federation in Winchester guildhall, about which Alan Gordon, the chairman of the Hampshire Police Federation said:
I have never witnessed such numbers, and I believe it is indicative of the strength of feeling that exists within the rank and file members.
I sincerely hope that it has not been lost on the ACPO team who were at the meeting how angry, annoyed and frustrated our officers feel about shortages of staff, pay and conditions of service within this Force.
Mr. Gordon was referring to the Hampshire force, which is 80 under strength. I dare say that the money is there, but the force cannot obtain the men to do the job. So far this year, 96 officers have resigned, against an expected target of 70. The chairman of the Hampshire Police Federation reported that nearly 130 officers were on long-term sick leave, which is an increase of more than 20 per cent. on last year's figure, and a further 120 officers were on restricted duties. As Mr. Gordon said, those figures amounted to nearly 10 per cent. of the force being unavailable for front-line duties before taking account of annual leave, rest days and court attendance.
Throughout the land, the police force is in crisis. It is no good the Home Secretary coming here and telling us what a fantastic job the Government have done because that has not been reflected on the ground, as one Member after another has testified. The hon. Member for West Ham said that he needed a load of bobbies to come to his rescue, as does every other victim of crime. However, they are simply not available. From everything that I have been told by Norman Brennan of the Victims of Crime Trust and the chairman of the Hampshire Police Federation, there is no doubt that morale is at rock bottom. It is partly a question of pay, and partly one of conditions. No fewer than 60 police officers in Hampshire have

decided against making contributions to their pension funds because they cannot make ends meet if they commit themselves to making those payments.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: indicated dissent.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but that is a fact, and it should be of great concern. Police officers are asking their chief constable whether they can take other jobs to supplement their income. In most cases, the chief constable is forced to say that that is not on, as it would be bad for officers' health and their commitment to the service.
There is also the question of status. Other Members have referred to the way in which the police have been battered. I make no apology for adverting to the Macpherson report. If the Government are not prepared to recognise the damage that has been done to police morale throughout the country—but particularly in London—by painting the police as institutionally racist and kicking them from pillar to post all the time, they do not understand what is going on in forces throughout the country. Today, a petition with 16,000 signatures was handed in by Norman Brennan on behalf of Steve Hutt, the policeman who was dismissed for making an unfortunate remark, which he has subsequently regretted. Morale has been seriously damaged by the Macpherson report and it is a great shame that the Government do not recognise that.
We are engaged in party politics, so it is fair enough to take part in the battle of trading figures on police numbers. However, we deceive ourselves if we pretend to the British people that the solution to all the problems of yob culture and street violence is wholly within our hands. It is not, as parents have a role to play. I genuinely believe that many of our problems stem from a lack of parental control. It is fair also to say that parental control is absent because the nature of families has changed. About 75 per cent. of the population are married now, whereas a few years ago the figure was 92 per cent. A fundamental change is taking place in the make-up of society and of families. Overwhelming evidence shows that children benefit from being brought up in a household with a mother and father who are married. To suggest otherwise is to ignore all the evidence.
That is not to say that those brought up in other types of household will turn to crime or become irresponsible citizens, but evidence shows that there is a greater likelihood of their prospering if they are brought up in a household where the parents are married.
When the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), addressed a conference that I organised on the cost of family breakdown, he said:
we know that the evidence demonstrates that marriage does work in creating a stable, coherent framework in which children can be brought up and acquire the values that are the bedrock of a stable society.
A report which I was responsible for drawing up, with others, on the cost of family breakdown shows that there is a relationship between broken families and the level of crime. The report states:
Home Office statistics for 1998 show 21 per cent. of all crime was committed by children under the age of sixteen. The significance of this lies less in the fact that they are responsible for up to 5 million


burglaries a year … than in the fact that 90 per cent. of juvenile offenders under sixteen come from broken families, and more than half have been excluded from school.
There is a clear message to the House and to the country. Of course, people may live the life style that they want, but society is paying a price for certain styles of family. The Government should be unequivocal, instead of pandering to political correctness, with one Minister set against another—the Home Secretary and his Minister of State both supporting marriage, but others forcing through the age of consent legislation in another place, and the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities saying, I believe, that all life styles are equally valid. The Government must recognise that the evidence shows that marriage forms the best basis.
I hope that the Government will recognise that the position is not as rosy as the Home Secretary painted it. There are serious difficulties with the Government's policy. The Opposition have proposed some solutions, particularly with respect to the family, that should help to reduce the level of crime.

Mr. Hilary Benn: In the debate so far, many hon. Members have spoken about the fear of crime. Like many other hon. Members who have spoken, I represent an inner-city area, and to me nothing symbolises that fear more accurately than the number of houses that I see in my constituency that have metal gates on the front door, because these days it is not enough to shut one's front door if one wants to shut the world out.
Because security is in part a state of mind, is it any wonder that our constituents who find that bloody syringe in the gutter or in the park next to the children's swings, who have to live through the comings and goings at houses where drug dealing takes place, who see the remains of the latest burned-out joy-ridden vehicle, feel that the area in which they live is in decline? That is certainly true of parts of my constituency.
We have in our society an extremely sensitive measure of the quality of life in particular areas. It is called house prices. Is it any wonder that there is such a disparity between the value of properties in different parts of Leeds, as is the case in other major cities?
As a relatively new Member, I have been surprised by the extent to which crime is drugs-related. In the police division of Holbeck, which covers the largest part of my constituency, 60 per cent. of the crime is thought to be drugs-related. Like many of the police officers to whom I speak, and, I suspect, an increasing proportion of hon. Members, I believe that we need a genuine debate about the scourge of drugs, and, to be controversial, I would include alcohol within that debate because of the effects that it has.
The other strong message that I want to put across on behalf of my constituents relates to what I describe as incivility and menace, to which other Members have referred. I am talking of neighbour disputes, children who are out of control, anti-social behaviour, the person next door who plays loud music into the small hours despite having been asked kindly to desist and cars being joy-ridden round estates. Joy-riding is a strange term because it brings no joy to my constituents, who have to listen to the screech of car tyres and the crunch of metal. Last month, one of my constituents, an elderly lady,

had a joy-ridden car driven into the back of her house. The windows were smashed, and it is no surprise that she wants to leave the area.
These are unquestionably crimes in the eyes of the victims, who come to my surgery and ask with simplicity and force, "Why should I have to live with this?" They are right to ask that question and we must have an answer.
I shall make three quick points. First, I do not believe that law-and-order soundbite wrestling, to which we have been treated in parts of the debate, is the solution. In truth, every Member knows that the problems are complex and the solutions elusive. We must consider police responsiveness. In my experience, nothing causes more aggravation than the policing waiting list. Inevitably, when the police receive a phone call, they will prioritise the man with a knife over young people causing difficulty in a neighbourhood. Yet it is frustrating for those on the receiving end of that menace and trouble not to have a police response.
I am interested in the neighbourhood warden initiative, a scheme which was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. Leeds is lucky in that it is one of the 50 schemes that has received funding. Two parts of my constituency, Beeston and Cottingley, will benefit. There is real potential because neighbourhood wardens might be able to undertake some police functions, including responding to a call and taking some details. With the best will in the world, even if we had in place now all the police officers who the Government will fund, those officers would still find it difficult to respond to every call.
Secondly, there is community policing. I have had the good fortune to meet good community police officers in central Leeds. Their work, and the uninterrupted time in which to do it, is crucial. It may not register in all the measures of police efficiency, but I believe that their form of nosey neighbourliness, if I may so describe it, is just as effective as their colleagues rapid response.
Interesting things have been happening on the Lincoln Green estate that have been initiated by Police Constable Tony Sweeney, the community police officer, working with the housing department and the council. There was a crackdown on crime involving several agencies. Nurses have been brought in from the local hospital to live in empty flats.
I was saying that house prices are a measure of demand. The social landlord equivalent of house prices is void rates. In April, there were 187 void properties on the Lincoln Green estate, and now there are only 68. Whereas the burglary rate for residential properties was averaging about 16 a month, it is now down to two or three a month. That is the result of hard graft locally, co-operation and commitment. The police, the council and the residents' association, which has only recently been formed, are working together to make a difference.
Thirdly, we need to consider the causes and the consequences of crime. There should be a consequence to our actions, and that is why I am strongly in favour of restorative justice schemes. We rightly feel the anger that Members have expressed on behalf of the victims of crime, but there is another voice in our heads which asks, "Why?" I recognise that there are those for whom crime is a career choice. However, we neglect at our peril the fact that criminal behaviour and low educational attainment are closely linked. We know that poverty is a


factor. We know that those who are addicted to drugs are driven to find the means to feed that habit. And how often do we read that those who have committed the most appalling crimes of violence were themselves subjected to abuse and beatings when they were young? My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is right to say that that can never be an excuse, but it does, in part, offer an explanation.
Since we can only give back to each other and to society that which we have been given, giving love and security to young people and showing our commitment to them, working through sure start and the literacy and numeracy initiatives, and carrying out better inspections of local authority services for children may, in themselves, be just as important long-term contributions to solving the problem of crime as any other measures that we take. They are all expressions of the "us", rather than the "me" society, and if they work, we might be able to restore hope to the people whom I represent, who desperately need it.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful to be called to speak. If there were two speeches by Labour Members to which the Home Secretary should have listened, one was made by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) and the other by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). We have learned a great deal from them this evening, and I regret deeply that the Home Secretary made a speech that was less interesting and less sensible than theirs.
The Government say that they will focus on cutting crime, but the Queen's Speech provides little evidence of a focus on anything other than a desire to do as little as possible save spin their way to the forthcoming election. The appearance of action is no substitute for action itself. The failure to recognise the problems that need solving, or the wilful refusal to see what is staring us all in the face, are not what the country requires in the Queen's Speech.
Why is there nothing in this Session's programme to ensure that police numbers are increased substantially to meet the needs of areas such as rural Harborough? The police force in my county has to cover not only the city of Leicester, with all the social and other crime-related problems that appear to be so prevalent in new Labour's urban Britain, but the huge area outside the city—rural Leicestershire and Rutland—which presents huge problems of isolated communities separated by long distances, cash-strapped district councils, a farming economy in crisis, village schools closing down, difficulties recruiting teachers, and drugs being sold to schoolchildren. The Government say that they are determined
to combat all aspects of crime to protect all members of our society
and I am sure that they would like to do so, but I heard nothing in the Queen's Speech and I have seen nothing of sufficient purpose or result achieved in previous Sessions to justify my having any faith in the Government's aspirations, or that their proposals will help my constituents.
Tackling disorder and disorderly conduct was the aim of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Why has so little been made of that legislation? Police and local authorities

have made scant use of anti-social behaviour orders and parenting orders, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said. Have the Government bothered to find out the reason, or whether any one reason or group of reasons lies behind that apparent failure? No, they have not, so they now propose general curfew orders which are draconian, illiberal and a desperate response to the Government's failures. It is wrong to impose a penalty on anyone, let alone a whole group of young people, without due process, but despite the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government clearly care little for due process. I suggest that it will be futile to impose general curfew orders if there is an insufficient number of police available to carry out their existing tasks.
The Government say that they want to make more use of tagging, or electronic home curfew orders, so that young criminals can be kept at home rather than sent into custody. That is fine in theory: it is far better to sentence a teenager to a home detention order than to send him to a young offenders institution, and I tried to do precisely that a little while ago. I sit as a recorder and I had before me a group of naughty, silly, bored teenagers who had, earlier this year, mugged a train passenger at a London railway station late one evening and stolen his mobile telephone. It was their first offence. The courts bend over backwards not to send youngsters inside when a more constructive alternative is available, and I suggested that the teenagers be kept at home between 7 o'clock at night and 7 o'clock the following morning. However, I received a letter from the Home Office telling me that judges should not sentence teenagers to home curfews because the authorities have neither the machines nor the ability to monitor them, and individuals who break a curfew are caught only by chance, usually in connection with some other offence.
Tagging has been available since the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and it was extended under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. However, the Government have failed to implement their warm-sounding words at every turn. The Government are not so much guilty of lacking the right intentions on criminal justice, as the managerial competence and willpower to carry their intentions through into action on the street and in the courts, be they adult or juvenile.
The Government propose legislation to regulate the private security industry, which is no doubt a hugely worthy subject. The Select Committee on Home Affairs dealt with that matter in the previous Parliament when the Conservatives were in office, largely at the behest of Labour Members, but when the Labour party took office it did nothing about it. Why not, and why only now? The Government are simply trying to fill up the time between now and next spring. The Labour party had 18 years in opposition. The Government should be bristling with ideas, but they are not. They are, I fear, a thought-free zone.
Instead, the Government give us a Bill on foxhunting. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) wasted a golden opportunity with his private Member's Bill to do something for his constituents. He made a gross error of judgment and achieved nothing. Now the Government are doing the same thing on a national scale, and their offence is made all the worse because their Bill comes in the wake of the Burns report. The Bill's motives are clear and they are of the lowest. It is throwing a bone to the left-wing, anti-rural element in the Labour party, to persuade it that


a Government led by this Prime Minister has not lost touch with its class warfare roots. Foxhunting is not at the top or anywhere near the top of the country's agenda. The Home Secretary knows that, and should have had the courage and the clout to stand up to the Government's business managers to get rid of the Bill and use the time to do something of benefit to the whole country.
The Home Secretary should have done the same with regard to the jury Bill. That was not a manifesto Bill the first time, it was not a manifesto Bill the second, and it is not a manifesto Bill this third time. It is unwanted, unnecessary, unpopular, illiberal and unintelligent, and it represents another missed opportunity.
The Home Secretary tried to rely upon the support of the previous Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, on Second Reading on the last occasion. He misused the correspondence with which Lord Bingham had provided him and he fell apart in trying to defend his actions. I have no doubt that during the next few weeks the Government will unravel as they try to produce a third and deeply silly jury Bill.
We have wasted a great deal with this Queen's Speech and during the next few months the Government will learn that to their cost.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: As we approach the end of the Government's first term, it is appropriate to look back at what we have achieved and to look forward at what we have yet to do. Last week, I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) speak of the shocking and tragic killing of her young constituent. She described the environment of the blighted estate in which Damilola Taylor lived and she rightly expressed the Government's vision in trying to improve and transform those conditions. She said that we have recognised the dreadful problems of social exclusion which blight our inner cities and outer estates. We are determined to address those needs and we have devised a range of policies and programmes, such as welfare to work, sure start, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, healthy living centres, education action zones, new deal, and so on.
In truth, we cannot know if all those policies will be effective, but we should and shall be judged on whether they work. We also deserve credit for our bold ambition—it is a bold ambition—both because of the difficulty of the task and the extent of the problem.
The social exclusion unit report identified 44 districts where there was at least two thirds more unemployment than normal, where the under-age pregnancy rate was one and a half times the normal, where 37 per cent. of 16-year-olds had no GCSE grades above grade D, and where mortality rates were 30 per cent. higher than normal. That is what characterised those communities. The report "Bringing People Together" estimates that there are between 1,600 and 4,000 such neighbourhoods. That is roughly 15 million people—30 per cent. of the population of these islands live in those areas.
At the beginning of the 21st century and at the end of this Labour Government's first term, I am confident that members of the previous Labour Governments of Attlee, Wilson and Callaghan would share our ambitions, if not all our methods. The solutions tried in the past have not worked. Where we have increased social welfare

programmes and poured in vast resources, there has been little effect other than perhaps increasing dependency. Our Government have embarked on a new policy of helping people to help themselves. I am pleased that the Queen's Speech continues that process by announcing Bills to tackle the continuing problems of the yob culture and benefit fraud, along with Bills to reform schools and help homeless people.
However, the Queen's Speech is something of a disappointment to many people in my constituency because of what it does not contain. Our 1997 manifesto promised a Bill to license houses in multiple occupation. Indeed, the Green Paper on housing published earlier this year outlined such a scheme. It seems that Ministers believe that that is not a sufficient priority for legislation this year. I am disappointed with that decision, although I understand the pressures of competing Bills in what may be a short programme.
Most Ministers and Members of Parliament will not see the need to increase regulation of houses in multiple occupation, or, if they recognise that need, they will not view it as a priority. That is the case because the distribution of houses in multiple occupation is neither random nor uniform. It is aggregated where there is unusual demand for short-term accommodation or unusual supply of surplus hotels or vacant housing. Those circumstances fall roughly into three categories. They apply in some northern cities—Leeds has already been mentioned—where the population is rapidly falling. They apply also in some seaside resorts. Finally, they apply in constituencies such as mine, which have benefited from the rapid increase in student numbers during the past decade.
The extension of the opportunity to participate in higher education to so many more young people is, indeed, a great benefit. Raising the education skill levels of our future work force is also a benefit to society. That benefit is not, however, unalloyed. During the past 10 years, the two universities in Cardiff, Central have increased their student numbers from a combined total of 10,000 to the present total of 30,000. That has occurred without any planned accommodation, transport or social infrastructure.
That rapid change has not happened without an undesired impact on local communities. In the inner-city wards of Cathays and Plasnewydd in my area, up to two thirds of properties have been converted into student flats. Most families have sold their houses to large-scale landlords and moved to quieter neighbourhoods. Local schools have suffered massively falling rolls and are struggling to cope. Much of the remaining indigenous population consists of elderly people, who often feel alienated from the new communities in which they live, although they have lived there all their lives. Streets that were filled a decade ago with house owners with a long-term commitment to their property and community are now owned by three or four large-scale landlords who live elsewhere and may never even have seen their properties. Such properties are often managed by letting agencies. Both landlords and letting agencies have only one clear commitment: to maximise the rental income in the shortest possible time.
Those are communities that are under stress and in which regulation is overdue. Short-term tenants such as students are highly vulnerable, as the properties that they inhabit may be unsafe. Although additional safeguards exist for some houses in multiple occupation, the current


definitions exclude the houses in which the majority of students in my constituency live—three-bedroomed family properties.
Cardiff students union has identified at least 160 students and several landlords who have lost money to a letting agency called Castle Management, which is based in Cardiff. Customs and Excise finally moved in and took the owners, Naiz Taj and Sha Unia, to court over a specimen debt of £12,780. The court order forced the business partners into liquidation on 8 November this year. I believe that Mr. Taj left the country the following day, leaving an estimated debt of £250,000, which he owed to students and others. What alarms me is the ease with which he and his partner could return and set up a new business that would prey on students and others.
It is common for students to pay bonds and non-returnable administrative fees to agencies that secure their houses and retainers of up to half or three quarters of the rent on houses that may be sub-let. That is unacceptable, and regulation and legislation is needed. The local council and students union should consider setting up bond boards to try to overcome those problems.
We could set up partnerships, but the Government should recognise that regulation of houses in multiple occupation is an essential requirement for some of our inner-city estates. That is not essential everywhere, but it is extremely important in some places. I hope that when the Minister winds up, he will give me and my constituents some reassurance about the fact that the legislation, although late, will not be forgotten.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: Her Majesty's Gracious Speech announced three housing Bills. All of them will be of interest to people living in our inner cities and beyond. The first Bill will speed up the home-buying process, the second is a commonhold and leasehold reform Bill and the third is a Homes Bill to help the unintentionally homeless.
Proposals to speed up home buying are long overdue. Compulsory sellers packs, which will contain standard and essential information and provide buyers with crucial documents, including survey information, search details and a contract proposal, are welcome. The question is whether those proposals will work. The pilot scheme in Bristol was not a true test because the sellers did not have to pay for their packs. When sellers are asked to pay, will they be prepared to do so, and will the financial institutions recognise the packs or call for their own surveys?
The service targets to encourage faster local authority searches are welcome, as are measures to encourage the use of new technology to speed up the service. We await the detail of the legislation, but hope that something can be done to speed up the home-buying process and to reduce the unnecessary costs that are often incurred by genuine buyers.
Before commenting on the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, it is worth remembering what the Government said in their consultation paper:
The existing residential leasehold system is fundamentally flawed. It has its roots in the feudal system and gives great powers and privileges to landowners. Despite a series of reforms over the last thirty or so years, abuses continue to flourish causing misery and distress to leaseholders.

From a 1992 estimate, there are approximately three quarters of a million long-leasehold flats in England and Wales. Leasehold is the system of tenure whereby the leaseholder buys a lease, often at the market price for freehold flats, for an extended period but does not gain the advantages of owning his property outright.
Liberal Democrats recognise that while leaseholds might suit some people, many leaseholders are unhappy with the system, and our policies would be geared to helping them to enfranchise themselves. The Government have recognised the need to change leasehold arrangements and have offered two proposals in a draft Bill. Those proposals involve the introduction of commonhold and, for those who cannot afford or do not wish to join that scheme, further reform to the current leasehold system.
Commonhold is a new form of tenure for blocks of flats and other multi-unit properties. However, many leaseholders and their associations have criticised the Government's proposals. They feel that the Government's objectives will not be sufficient to end the "misery and distress" experienced by leaseholders. Their criticisms are threefold: first, that leasehold will continue to exist without a schedule for its full removal; secondly, that commonhold will not be a solution for leaseholders because 100 per cent. of tenants and the freeholder must consent, which is highly unlikely; and thirdly, that in order for leaseholders collectively to enfranchise under the proposed plan, they would have to allow the freeholder to retain the "marriage value" of the property when the lease has less than 90 years remaining. What reassurance can the Minister give to convince leaseholders that their fears are unwarranted?
The Homes Bill will implement the homelessness package outlined in the housing Green Paper. It will meet the Government's manifesto commitment to restore the duty on local authorities to provide homeless people in priority need with settled accommodation. Can we expect it to set out a more strategic and preventive statutory framework for tackling all forms of homelessness? That would create a modern framework for reducing homelessness by shifting the emphasis from crisis-driven intervention to a long-term approach focused on tackling social exclusion.
The formulation of the new duty will mean that homeless people in priority need will be provided with settled accommodation, but what about homeless people who are not in priority need? Will the new legislation improve the assistance given to them? Under the existing legislation, authorities are required to provide advice and assistance to help that group secure accommodation. However, the level of service provided is often poor, with applicants sometimes sent away with just a list of bed-and-breakfast establishments.
The housing Green Paper emphasised that local authorities should provide accommodation for homeless people who are in priority need if they have the scope within their housing stock to do so. However, authorities already have that discretion if they wish to use it. It may help in areas where there is less pressure on the housing stock, but it will not improve the position for people in most areas of the country where the pressure on housing is greater.
We believe that the intention should be to improve the level of service as far as possible for homeless people in all areas of the country. We recognise that in high-demand


areas it is unrealistic to expect authorities to provide accommodation for this group. However, the quality of advice and assistance is not dependent on the amount of stock available, and there are numerous examples of good practice achieved in various parts of the country.
The housing Green Paper floated proposals to reform the social housing lettings process, to introduce more flexibility and to promote choice. Which of those proposals will be implemented in the Homes Bill?
We agree with the aim of allowing local authorities to implement lettings schemes that are relevant to local needs and priorities. That is consistent with promoting a stronger strategic housing role for local authorities. However, there is a need to ensure that, within a more flexible framework, meeting housing need will continue to be a key priority, and that certain basic requirements are met in all local authority areas. We believe that local flexibility should be underpinned by a set of minimum standards, which could be set out in regulations.
The Green Paper was clear that applicants should be suspended from the lettings process only in exceptional circumstances and that vulnerable groups should be safeguarded. Any reform of the lettings process must also give priority to providing a robust mechanism for ensuring that the current wide-ranging exclusions from social housing are brought to an end.
We hope that the Homes Bill will contain important new measures to prevent homelessness, and that the emphasis of the statutory framework will shift from crisis-driven intervention to a more long-term approach. Will the legislation include the proposals in the housing Green Paper to place local authorities under a duty to carry out homelessness audits and to publish strategies for preventing homelessness in their area? Will it ensure that social services departments participate fully in this process so that homelessness strategies operate across all relevant parts of the local authority?
With the social housing sector continuing to diversify and the stock transfer programme set to increase to 200,000 units per year, it is important that robust arrangements are in place to ensure that housing need continues to be met after transfers have taken place. That links in with the scope of the strategic role of housing authorities and with the emphasis on creating sustainable communities, as set out in the Green Paper. Will that be recognised in the legislation?
Will the legislation recognise that the current statutory framework does not give adequate protection to victims of racial violence and harassment? That was recently highlighted by a case reported in The Guardian, in which a family who had suffered persistent racial harassment were not offered alternative accommodation by their local authority. That is a complex case, but it highlights some of the housing difficulties faced by victims of racial abuse.
The current homelessness legislation makes it clear that it is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation when they are experiencing violence from a partner or another associated person. Shelter, the housing pressure group, does not expect the first draft of the Bill to include new provisions in this area. Is this another area where the housing lobby will have to wait and see?
The present homelessness legislation sets out categories of people whose vulnerability is such that they are considered to have a priority need for housing. They

currently include people with dependent children, pregnant women, those who are vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or disability, and those made homeless as a result of a natural disaster.
The housing Green Paper proposed the extension of priority need to new groups, including homeless 16 and 17-year-olds, people leaving care and those who were vulnerable as a result of violence and harassment or had an institutionalised background. Will those measures be included in the Homes Bill, or will they be introduced in new regulations under powers conferred by the Housing Act 1996?
Homeless people who experience domestic violence and who have dependent children are currently considered to have a priority need for housing. However, although they may be considered homeless under the current legislation, people without children who are fleeing domestic violence are often not found to be in priority need by some local authorities, and are therefore not entitled to temporary accommodation.

Ms Oona King: I, too, welcome many of Shelter's proposals. As for how councils can extend provision for the homeless, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's intended review of the £8 million increase in revenue support grant should take place earlier rather than later?

Mr. Sanders: The hon. Lady is right. It is just a pity that that did not happen in the first year after the Government took power and that we have had to wait three years. As a result, public funding for housing will be less at the end of this Government's term than it was under the last Government.
In relation to people with institutionalised backgrounds, it will be important to consider any proposals within the wider contexts of tackling social exclusion and reducing reoffending rates. The social exclusion unit's 1998 report on rough sleeping revealed that about half the number of rough sleepers had been in prison or on remand at some time. Many prisoners have a history of homelessness, local authority care, drug abuse and mental illness. Without a home to go to or support on release, people are likely to reoffend and begin a cycle of homelessness or crime. Will the Homes Bill set up a clear framework of guidance to establish the circumstances in which people will be considered to be vulnerable?
There are some disappointments in the Queen's Speech. There is no mention of housing benefit reform, and the housing benefit restrictions for under-25s are still in place. As others have said today, many housing organisations were disappointed to learn that legislation was not included to deal with houses in multiple occupation. HMOs include a number of properties in many inner-city and other urban areas.
The Government claim to be keen to implement such legislation, but it is not in the Queen's Speech. Many organisations say that it should be a top priority for the first Queen's Speech after the general election. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will act quickly?
The House spends too little time debating housing issues, yet housing is vital to the quality of life of all our citizens—and that applies to none more than those in inner cities. In that regard, the Queen's Speech has taken


a very small step forward, but many questions remain unanswered, and hundreds of policy proposals remain on the shelf.

Mr. Archie Norman: The Deputy Prime Minister is unable to join us this evening. We wish him and his family well—he is attending an important family engagement—and welcome in his place the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I have no doubt that she will bring her usual refreshing candour and honesty to the debate.
This has been an interesting discussion, marked at its heart by a clear division between those who believe that the priority in the Queen's Speech should have been tackling the root causes of crime and those who believe that symptomatic measures are sufficient.
We have heard many interesting contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), in a characteristic tour de force, listed the Government's failures to tackle crime at its source. The core of her case was the irrefutable point that rising crime figures are driven by the decline in police numbers under the present Government. The Home Secretary, who has now resumed his seat, spoke for an hour, in considerable detail. What was disappointing about his response was his failure to answer any of the specific points that had been raised, particularly those relating to the decline in police numbers and police morale, to evidence of a decline in the state of the Prison Service, and to the estimated number of asylum seekers now staying on illegally in the country. He would not give us a single answer on any of those points.
Most amazing of all was the Home Secretary's attempt to demonstrate that crime in this country was not rising at all—an observation that will be as alien to people living in our inner cities as was the Minister for Transport's claim that the railways were not in crisis.

Mr. Straw: Is the hon. Gentleman disputing the irrefutable evidence from the British crime survey, which showed that crime overall went down by 10 per cent. between 1997 and the end of 1999?

Mr. Norman: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am referring to his own figures for crime in the past year. Crime has undoubtedly gone up; it has gone up in almost every major city.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Norman: I need to make some progress, but I will refer later to the specific numbers for specific—

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have two Members standing at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Norman: If the Secretary of State will excuse me, we have very little time left for the winding-up speeches, so I will make some progress.
Some remarkable contributions have been made, notably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who referred with great eloquence to the threadbare and dangerously illiberal proposals in the Queen's Speech; by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who spoke with great knowledge and authority on the dangers of the withdrawal of trial by jury; and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), who spoke with the depth of knowledge that derives from having been responsible for Wandsworth for many years. There were other important contributions, notably those by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry).
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson) on a remarkable maiden speech. It was delivered with great verve, eloquence, passion and feeling. We appreciate his contribution to the debate.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) kept us well entertained. He started with a whimsical reference to the Greater London council and moved on to talk about his unfortunate experiences in West Ham, for which he has our sympathy. However, he then continued to argue for the legalisation of drugs, which lost us somewhat. Finally, he said that he was no Colonel Blimp from Tunbridge Wells, which will come as a considerable relief to some of my constituents.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) made a remarkable bipartisan contribution that was rich in detail. He made the point that the solutions to the problem of the inner cities and inner-city crime are complex. He is surely right. He argued strongly for community policing, for neighbourhood wardens and for the social causes of crime to be tackled.
The relationship between crime and the decline of the inner cities is inextricable. Their decline is the engine of social deprivation and the driving force of poverty, welfare dependence and loss of opportunity for children who are left behind at a time of prosperity for the rest of the country.
The inner cities account for 53 per cent. of all crime and a larger proportion of violent and serious crime. As the Rowntree Foundation said,
cities have the brightest lights and darkest corners feeding the hopes and fuelling the fears of millions—
a sentiment that can be shared by Members on both sides of the House. Cities' success or failure will determine the country's success or failure in tackling Britain's major social problems and in dealing with the problems of crime at source.
After three-and-a-half years of prosperity, today the state of our cities is not better but worse than in 1997. According not to my figures but the Government's own figures, poverty has increased. According to the Government's own figures, the gap between rich and poor has increased. According to the Rowntree Foundation, 500,000 more people are living below the poverty line than in 1997. According to Oxford Economic Forecasting


and the university of Bristol, the north-south divide has increased, despite the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister seems to think that it does not exist at all—I quote:
There is no North-South divide on unemployment.
Perhaps the Minister might like to comment on that in her winding-up speech. Does she agree?
Crime in the inner cities has increased. The Home Secretary would like to pretend otherwise, but his own figures suggest that there has been a 16 per cent. increase in crime in urban areas in the west midlands; a 12.6 per cent. increase in London; a 9 per cent. increase in Southwark, to choose a topical location, where police numbers have been cut by 40 since the election; and an 8 per cent. increase in Merseyside, where police numbers have been cut by 300 since the election.
Before the general election, the current Home Secretary said:
Poverty and lack of opportunity cause crime. But crime and disorder … reduce opportunity even further.
In other words, we are caught in a vicious circle which the Home Secretary has perpetuated. [Interruption.] Consequently, the exodus from our cities has continued: not only have Newcastle and Manchester lost 16 and 22 per cent. of their populations in the past 30 years, but in the past three years—

Mr. Straw: What was that about the past 30 years?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to those on the Treasury Bench. Perhaps we should calm ourselves; just be calm.

Mr. Norman: The exodus is perpetuated by the Government's own policies which encourage building on green fields, particularly in the south-east and south-west where more than 60 per cent. of new houses will inevitably be built on green fields. Let Members on both sides of the House also remember that for every executive home built in the countryside, there is a family leaving the inner city, a school roll decreasing in the inner city, a shop nearer closure in the inner city and crime increasing in the inner city. The two problems are inextricably linked. The death of the countryside is also the death of the inner cities.
The decline of our inner cities is not new, but its continuation should not only concern every hon. Member but serve as a call to action for every hon. Member. Against that background, the Queen's Speech is a bitter disappointment. It will come as a bitter disappointment to all those who, in the past three years, worked so hard—many with the Government—to develop a programme for the inner cities. However, that disappointment comes as no surprise following the flop of the urban White Paper, which was a great disappointment not least to Lord Rogers, who, with great and commendable reservation, said:
this White Paper falls short of what is going to be required to engender a real urban renaissance.
The Queen's Speech was an opportunity for imagination, coherence and boldness. Instead, almost nothing in it is of the slightest relevance at all to the causes of crime or to inner-city regeneration. It is full of measures that are peripheral, vacuous, illiberal and gimmicky, and it is clearly designed to be eye-catching, with a view to a general election but nothing else.
Where in the Queen's Speech are all the measures that Lord Rogers called for and that would have commanded bipartisan support in the House? Where are the urban priority areas that were going to be the centrepiece of Lord Rogers's reforms? Where are the new powers for regeneration companies that would have required primary legislation? Where are the measures to reverse the exodus from our cities and to arrest building over our countryside? Where are the measures to level the playing field on tax, which have been universally called for by all those who are involved in inner-city regeneration? Where are the measures to bring coherence to a Government programme that is totally incoherent, splintered and full of Elastoplast, politically correct initiatives?
It was the Government's own performance and innovation unit that referred to
too many Government initiatives causing confusion and not enough co-ordination
and it was the Prime Minister who, a year ago, gave the Minister for the Cabinet Office the task of ensuring that
joined up Government for the socially excluded is a reality in every part of the country.
Can the Minister point to one single measure that will help her in that cause, or does she agree with us, Lord Rogers and the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee that the programme for the inner city is too fragmented and dissipated and that money is being wasted? Does she agree that there should be a single regeneration Minister; that urban regeneration companies need statutory powers and to be rolled out across the country; that there should be increased policing as a prerequisite for spending money on urban regeneration; and that it would be better to spend money first on education and policing before a penny is spent on developing new and expensive buildings or fortifying houses, so that politicians can parade down the streets congratulating themselves on their progress?
Does the Minister agree that the Government's priority should be policing—community policing in particular—and education first, and money spent on everything else second? Is she satisfied that the current programmes are coherent, fundamental and co-ordinated, or does she agree with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? I hate to bring him into this debate, but he said:
there is a risk of having far too many central projects and too many … programmes
and that a top-down approach from Whitehall would not work.
When the Minister for the Cabinet Office goes back to Redcar for Christmas and meets youths and young people on the estates, does she believe that she can sell the curfew orders to them as a way of improving their life style and encouraging them to stay in the cities, or of giving them a single reason not to leave and move to the countryside?
It was the Minister herself who said in June:
this Government's top priority is to tackle the root causes of poverty, homelessness and social exclusion.
Will she tell us what in the Queen's Speech helps tackle one root cause of poverty, homelessness or social exclusion? Which of the Government's achievements is she most proud of? Is it the 3,000 increase in homelessness since 1997? Is it the 50 per cent. increase in those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Is it the


fact that the Government have spent less money on regeneration than we did? Is it the growing number of empty houses in our cities? Is it rising crime and the fact that the Home Secretary does not even think that crime is rising? Or is it the accelerated house building on green fields?
Is not the truth that the choice at the election will be between a Conservative party committed to governing for all, increasing police numbers in the inner cities, rolling out regeneration companies under a single Minister, reversing years of failure of Labour councils and local education authorities, and a Labour party which masquerades as a party of the less well-off but which took a mere three-and-a-half years to run out of ideas, forget its origins, forsake the inner cities and betray its own heartlands?

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): May I echo what other right hon. and hon. Members have said about the excellent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson)? It was very impressive—the content was good, it was well informed and he gave a wonderful performance. I think that the House will hear more from him in the future. We all join him in the tribute that he paid to his predecessor, Donald Dewar, a well-respected man of integrity whom the House misses.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary opened the debate by setting out very clearly what the Government are doing to fight crime and the important legislation proposed in the Gracious Speech to help to achieve that. As a Government, we have always maintained—and this relates to the last point of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman)—that there are two sides to that coin. We said that we would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.
To address some of the causes of crime, we are not only making major investments in policing, CCTV and other crime reduction projects but are putting equal emphasis on a comprehensive programme of action to help communities blighted by crime, unemployment, poverty, poor health and a poor quality of life.
When we came to power in 1997, we faced tremendous challenges. As a result of 18 years of Tory Government, crime had doubled, communities had been ravaged by nearly two decades in which long-term unemployment doubled, homelessness and poverty had more than doubled and child poverty had tripled. It was a poisonous legacy fuelled by serious under-investment in places and in people. Many communities were destroyed—one has only to look at what happened to the mining communities in Yorkshire and elsewhere in the 1980s to realise that that is so.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells says that social measures are lacking in the Queen's Speech. Yes, they are, because we are working in parallel. Bills match each other. We have already introduced the new deal. We have provided an extra £5 billion for local authorities to tackle the scandalous housing repair backlog that we inherited. We shall provide an extra £250 million over the next three years to help key workers buy houses in our major towns and cities—houses for nurses, teachers, police officers and others.
We are starting to rebuild our roads and railways. We have set up the new deal for communities. We have committed £350 million, over three years, to regenerate coalfield communities. I shall not continue the list because it goes on and on, but I have mentioned the things that we are doing. [HON. MEMBERS: "We want more."] We have begun to modernise central and local government and to reform the civil service and service delivery. We have established regional development agencies to drive forward economic growth and regenerate the regions in partnership with local communities.
Many of those threads have been drawn together by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and published in the White Paper on urban policy, "Our Towns and Cities: The Future". We have set explicit targets for improvements in the delivery of those services. To help to take that forward, early next year we shall publish our action plan for neighbourhood renewal, building on months of extensive consultation and discussion.
Hon. Members present in the Chamber tonight will have heard many hon. Members, who are expert in the subject, talk about their local communities and the nature of the problems that they face. That has been reflected in many contributions. I should like to respond to some of the points that have been made. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) agreed that the yob culture must be taken on and that trust must be built between the police and communities to tackle violence and crime where people are threatened.
On curfews, we do not want to discriminate against kids. I was struck by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central said that he viewed curfews as a child protection proposal, which is a positive and clear way to express it. Curfews are intended to protect children and their communities. They will apply to 15-year-olds and under—children of statutory school age. It is not a blanket proposal. We will not pick every 14 or 15-year-old off the streets.
Curfews will be used by local authorities in conjunction with the police, and they will have to go to the Home Secretary for ultimate authority. They represent a thoughtful way in which to help children who are under threat. Alongside that proposal, we are tough on the causes as well as on the crime. We are helping to keep kids away from crime, with summer schools and youth inclusion schemes, which have cut crime rates and kids have better opportunities as a result.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) argued that we need to achieve sustainable communities and that we need to abolish allocation policies to achieve that. I am pleased to let him know that the Homes Bill, which was presented today, will reform the way in which local authorities allocate housing. The Bill will be published tomorrow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) was disappointed that the Queen's Speech did not include proposals to license houses in multiple occupation—HMOs, as he referred to them. I am afraid that, unfortunately, we have not found it possible to find time for to license HMOs in this Session, but the Government remain committed to introducing such legislation when parliamentary time allows.
My hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Central and for Leeds, North-West, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), asked whether the Government should look further at licensing landlords in the private rented sector. In the housing Green Paper, which was published in April, we consulted on possible approaches to tackle the worst practices in the private rented sector. We shall announce our conclusions later this week and will then address that issue.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) wanted a draft leasehold reform Bill, and one will be published, as well as the Homes Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) suggested in an intervention that we would miss out Committee and Report stages. I assure him that any Bill that the Home Office introduces will be taken through all the relevant stages, as will all the other Bills.
Several hon. Members, including the right hon. and learned Members for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), raised the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, which will benefit victims, and the criminal justice system generally, by ensuring that cases are not delayed and do not waste the time of the Crown court unnecessarily. The right to elect jury trial has been used by many defendants in criminal cases to cause delays in the courts. Research shows that in the majority of cases in which a defendant elects a jury trial he will change his plea from not guilty to guilty once the case goes to the Crown court.
Several Labour Members argued that defendants in Scotland have never had the right to choose which court will try them, and I have never heard anyone in either House of Parliament complain that that has led to inferior justice over the border. Any change of this kind needs to be alive to the need for safeguards. That is why we are providing a right of appeal to a senior judge against decisions by magistrates that they should hear a case.
My hon. Friends the Members for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) spoke of the relationship between crime, drugs and alcohol. I assure both my hon. Friends that we are working hard to do what we can on what is not a short-term problem but a complicated issue. We have programmes on prevention, education and treatment. We need more on that front. We have gone a long way, but we still have an awful long way to go. We are working in Europe and south America to try to stop the supply of drugs, or at least to cut it down. This is not an easy issue, but I can assure those who have expressed concern about the impact of drugs on their communities that we are doing all that we can to ensure that the problem does not get worse. We hope that it will now get better.
The hon. Member for Torbay raised the question of housing legislation. We are grateful for his support for our proposals. The Homes Bill was introduced today and it will be published tomorrow. It will cover issues such as reform of the house-buying system and the strengthening of the safety net for those made homeless. I do not have time to go into detail now, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied in relation to many of the points that he raised this evening.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), raised the question of police numbers. I shall not go into the arguments that we have already spent some time discussing. Suffice it to say that

there was agreement that decline has been steady since 1993. It is worth noting what the Police Federation blames for the decline in police numbers. Its chairman, Mr. Fred Broughton, said in 1990:
The principle reason, without any doubt, is the damage that was done at the decision of the last government to take housing allowance away from new recruits.
We have boosted the pay of the 1994 recruits to the Metropolitan police by about £3,500 to compensate for that Tory mistake. More will be given, year on year, to increase police numbers, aiming at an increase of 9,000 over the next three years.
On the points raised about the urban White Paper, I want to make it clear that many of its proposals do not require legislation. For example, new planning guidance, PPG1, new millennium communities, more urban regeneration companies and the £180 billion, 10-year transport plan do not need legislation. We have already legislated in some areas—for example, on the new powers for councils to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will introduce—

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add:
'But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech makes no mention of the decline in police numbers since 1997; note the continuing failure of many of the Government's measures to combat youth crime and that the Government remains committed to the early release from jail of thousands of criminals; deplore the Government's further attempt to restrict the right to trial by jury and its failure to put forward any measures to strengthen the rights of victims of crime, or to make prisons more purposeful, or sentencing more transparent, or to clear up the chaos in the asylum system; and further regret the absence of measures to halt the decline of inner cities and the failure to create a coherent programme of actions since 1997 to address the conditions that give rise to the growth of crime in deprived urban areas, notably poorly-maintained housing, rising homelessness, increasing numbers of empty houses and failing inner city schools, which have combined with the Government's commitment to building on green fields to perpetuate migration from inner cities.'—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Calling of amendments at end of debate), That the amendment be made:—
The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Speaker: I instruct the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 169, Noes 329.

Division No. 1]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Ballard, Jackie


Allan, Richard
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Amess, David
Bercow, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Blunt, Crispin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Body, Sir Richard


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Baldry, Tony
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia






Brady, Graham
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brake, Tom
Kirkwood, Archy


Brand, Dr Peter
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Breed, Colin
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lansley, Andrew




Browning, Mrs Angela
Leigh, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lidington, David


Burns, Simon
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Burstow, Paul
Livsey, Richard


Butterfill, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter


Cash William
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



McIntosh, Miss Anne



MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clappison, James
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Major, Rt Hon John



Malins, Humfrey


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maples, John


Collins, Tim
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Cran, James
May, Mrs Theresa


Curry, Rt Hon David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Moss, Malcolm


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Nicholls, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Norman, Archie


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Oaten, Mark


Duncan, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Page, Richard


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Paice, James


Faber, David
Pickles, Eric


Fabricant, Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fallon, Michael
Prior, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Randall, John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Rendel, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Robathan, Andrew


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fox, Dr Liam
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fraser, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gale, Roger
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Garnier, Edward
St Aubyn, Nick


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Sanders, Adrian


Gibb, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gidley, Sandra
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gill, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Soames, Nicholas


Green, Damian
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Grieve, Dominic
Steen, Anthony


Gummer Rt Hon John
Stunell, Andrew


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Swayne, Desmond


Hammond, Philip
Syms, Robert



Tapsell, Sir Peter


Harris, Dr Evan
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Harvey, Nick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hawkins, Nick
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hayes, John
Townend, John


Heald, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Trend, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Tyler, Paul


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tyrie, Andrew


Horam, John
Walter, Robert


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Webb, Steve


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Wells, Bowen


Hunter, Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Keetch, Paul
Wilkinson, John


Key, Robert
Willetts, David


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Willis, Phil





Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)



Yeo, Tirn
Mr. James Gray and


Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. Keith Simpson.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Ainger, Nick



Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Darvill, Keith


Ashton, Joe
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Austin, John
Davidson, Ian


Bailey, Adrian
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Banks, Tony
Dawson, Hilton


Barnes, Harry
Dean, Mrs Janet


Barron, Kevin
Denham, John


Bayley, Hugh
Dismore, Andrew


Beard, Nigel
Dobbin, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Begg, Miss Anne
Donohoe, Brian H


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Doran, Frank


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Drew, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benton, Joe
Edwards, Huw


Bermingham, Gerald
Efford, Clive


Berry, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Best, Harold
Ennis, Jeff


Betts, Clive
Etherington, Bill


Blackman, Liz
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fisher, Mark


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Flint, Caroline


Borrow, David
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foulkes, George


Buck, Ms Karen
Galloway, George


Burden, Richard
Gardiner, Barry


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gerrard, Neil


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Goggins, Paul


Caplin, Ivor
Golding, Mrs Llin


Casale, Roger
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grocott, Bruce


Chaytor, David
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter




Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Ann
Healey, John


Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coleman, Iain
Hendrick, Mark


Colman, Tony
Heppell, John


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hesford, Stephen


Cooper, Yvette
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corbett, Robin
Hill, Keith


Corston, Jean
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cox, Tom
Hoey, Kate


Cranston, Ross
Hope, Phil


Crausby, David
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cummings, John
Hoyle, Lindsay






Humble, Mrs Joan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hurst, Alan
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hutton, John
Morley, Elliot


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Illsley, Eric



Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Jamieson, David



Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mudie, George



Mullin, Chris


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Olner, Bill



O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pearson, Ian


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pendry, Tom


Keeble, Ms Sally
Perham, Ms Linda


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pickthall, Colin


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pike, Peter L


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Plaskitt, James


Kemp, Fraser
Pollard, Kerry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pond, Chris


Khabra, Piara S
Pope, Greg


Kidney, David
Pound, Stephen


Kilfoyle, Peter
Powell, Sir Raymond


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kingham, Ms Tess
Purchase, Ken


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Lammy, David
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Laxton, Bob
Rammell, Bill


Lepper, David
Raynsford, Nick


Leslie, Christopher
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Levitt, Tom
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)



Linton, Martin
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rogers, Allan


Lock, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Love, Andrew
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCabe, Steve
Rowlands, Ted


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Ruddock, Joan



Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Salmond, Alex


McDonnell, John
Sarwar, Mohammad


McFall, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McIsaac, Shona
Sawford, Phil


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Shaw, Jonathan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


MacShane, Denis
Singh, Marsha


Mactaggart, Fiona
Skinner, Dennis


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mallaber, Judy
Soley, Clive


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spellar, John


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Martlew, Eric
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stevenson, George


Meale, Alan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Merron, Gillian
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Stinchcombe, Paul


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Miller, Andrew
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mitchell, Austin
Stringer, Graham





Stuart, Ms Gisela
Walley, Ms Joan


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Ward, Ms Claire


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wareing, Robert N



Watts, David


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
White, Brian


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)



Timms, Stephen
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Todd, Mark
Wills, Michael


Touhig, Don
Winnick, David


Truswell, Paul
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wood, Mike


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Woodward, Shaun


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Woolas, Phil


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wyatt, Derek


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)



Tynan, Bill
Tellers for the Noes:


Vaz, Keith
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Vis, Dr Rudi
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question again proposed.

It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion on Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 in the name of the Prime Minister may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I question whether the Standing Order under which motion No. 3 is to be debated is the appropriate Standing Order.
For the past 10 years, the Standing Order has allowed a fishing debate before the Minister goes to the Fisheries Council. As the forthcoming Fisheries Council is the most important for 10 years, would it not be extraordinary if the House of Commons and hon. Members representing fishing constituencies were not allowed to express their views to the Minister with responsibility for fisheries before he went to the Council, as opposed to afterwards? Is Standing Order No. 119(9) the appropriate Standing Order?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point of order. There is no breach of any Standing Order. The matter that he raises is one for the business managers and not for the Speaker.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was an opportunity yesterday to debate the matter in Committee. All Members had the opportunity to talk about the annual fish quotas. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was not present for that Committee debate.

Sir Robert Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be helpful for the Chair to enlighten Members, such as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), that under the Standing Orders any Member is entitled to attend a European Standing Committee and put his points to the Minister? It was the absence of the hon. Gentleman and others that meant that points were not made on behalf of their constituents.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Speaker tries always to enlighten all Members.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

FISHERIES: TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES AND QUOTAS 2001
That this House takes note of the Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum of 28th November relating to the fixing of fishing opportunities for 2001 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; recognises that a number of fish stocks have fallen to particularly low levels; and supports the Government's intention to sustain stocks for the future, and assist recovery of those stocks which are in danger of collapse, while negotiating the best possible fishing opportunities for UK fishermen.—[Mr. McNulty.]

MR SPEAKER: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Division deferred till Wednesday 13 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 21st December, do adjourn till Monday 8th January 2001.—[Mr. McNulty.]

MR SPEAKER: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Division deferred till Wednesday 13 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12,
That the House shall not sit on the following Fridays:
12th and 19th January, 16th February, 2nd March, 4th May, 22nd and 29th June, 6th and 13th July and 19th October 2001.—[Mr. McNulty.]

MR SPEAKER: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Division deferred till Wednesday 13 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July 2001.—[Mrs. Beckett.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of their approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000–01, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2000–01 and the Pre-Budget Report 2000 shall be treated as if they were instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).
I stress that I want to say little about the 1993 Act, the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000–01, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2000–01 or the Pre-Budget Report 2000. Even if I wished to focus on their content, I suspect that you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will have much to say, and the motion before us allows that to happen in an appropriate way, but at present we are discussing the process for that discussion rather than the content of it.
Section 5 of the—

Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister will know that section 5 states that these reports will be the basis of submissions to the European Commission. Will the House read what information the Government send on the basis of that, or will the information be kept secret and away from the House? In other words, will the Government tell us what information they will pass on, which we note must be based on two large reports?

Mr. Tipping: I am about to describe the process and I shall take the hon. Gentleman through it before answering his point. Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act provides that both Houses must approve a report to Parliament on the Government's
assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure and to the social, economic and environmental goals set out in Article 2
of the treaty. As in previous years, the section 5 report is to be the Financial Statement and Budget Report, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and the Pre-Budget Report published on 8 November. That is the material to be discussed by the Committee. It is important that we have that discussion before discussing the material to be sent on to the Commission, but the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) makes a fair point: in the interests of openness, the material sent by the Treasury to the Commission should be available for public inspection.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister is being helpful. Will he confirm that all Members of Parliament will be able to read the information that the Government send to the Commission, if they wish to do so? That would be a most helpful concession and clarification.

Mr. Tipping: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to ensure that, following the discussion in Committee, the report sent by the Government to the Commission is made available in the Library to all Members of Parliament, I am happy to arrange that. The answer is yes.
The motion allows the discussion to take place in Standing Committee, rather than on the Floor of the House. The motion is not unprecedented: this is the third annual programme to be submitted in that way, and the section 5 debate was carried out upstairs in 1997–98 and 1998–99. Debate in Committee will last for exactly the same time as it would on the Floor of the House—one and a half hours—and any Member will be able to participate in that debate.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Minister telling us that, if we agree to the motion, all Members of Parliament—or at least, over 500 of them—will have only an hour and a half to consider these matters and that there will be no further opportunity to do so?

Mr. Tipping: Let me make two points in response. The documents for discussion are the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000–01, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2000–01 and the Pre-Budget Report 2000, all of which the House has had an opportunity to discuss. The right hon. Gentleman asks whether only an hour and a half is to be available for the debate. That is so, and it would be so if the debate were held on the Floor of the House. With those remarks, I commend this simple motion to the House.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Based on the figures in the documents, will the Minister tell the House how close the Government are to meeting the two tests relating to the deficit criterion and the debt criterion, and in which year they will meet their own five key convergence tests for giving up the pound for the euro? The figures on which the Minister is working go up to 2005–06, but in which year are we likely to meet the convergence criteria set by the Government—or have we already done so?

Mr. Eric Forth: The motion is one of those seemingly innocuous motions which the Government would prefer the House to nod through quietly. It will probably be subject to the ghastly new deferred vote mechanism. Given the number of hon. Members who are present tonight, several hundred hon. Members will magically appear to vote on Wednesday with little or no idea of what has been discussed. However, that is how the Government want to run the House of Commons and the country and, for the time being, that is how it must be. I am delighted to say that the debate has no time limit, and presumably cannot be subject to a closure motion because all the Government Members have gone home. That is another interesting thought which we might wish to ponder and explore on future occasions. These debates literally mean "until any hour", unless Members are brought back to impose a closure.
We are being asked to deliberate on some substantial documents. The Pre-Budget Report alone is a large and expensive document, with a cover price of £40. Here, according to the Government, is £40-worth of material, along with several other documents, which the Minister now tells us will have to be dealt with in an hour and a


half in a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, in which he says, with great generosity, that all Members of Parliament may participate.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It may be true that all Members of Parliament may participate, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that not all Members of Parliament can vote?

Mr. Forth: I regret that my right hon. and learned Friend is correct on that matter. Roughly 500 Members who are not on the payroll can turn up in the Committee—I hope that a large Room has been booked for the purpose—and seek to catch the Chairman's eye to debate the Pre-Budget Report, among other documents, for an hour and a half, but, regrettably, at the end of the process, only the members of the Committee will be able to vote on the matter, and that will be the last word that the House has.
The Government are trying, in order to conceal I know not what, to slip some substantial and important material through a Committee which, by its very nature, can hardly be representative of the House. That would be bad enough—I refer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—but section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, referred to in the motion, states:
Her Majesty's Government shall report to Parliament for its approval—
it says only "for its approval", not "or not", or "for its consideration", which rather prejudges the matter in an undesirable way—
an assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure and to the social, economic and environmental goals …
That is presumably what this large amount of material is about. Then the section says:
which report shall form the basis of any submission to the Council and Commission.
Presumably, "which report" must and can only in this context refer to all the documentation referred to in the motion. But the section says "shall form the basis". The Committee is presumably being asked to consider all this material in some way, and then to take as a matter of faith the means by which Her Majesty's Government will report it.

Mr. Hogg: Would it not be right for the Government to attach a health warning to any recommendation in the report that they may make to the effect that it has been considered in Committee by a small number of hon. Members, with an even smaller number of hon. Members able to vote?

Mr. Forth: Yes, that would certainly be in the cause of transparency—about which we hear quite a lot from the Government these days—to say nothing of freedom of information. Why on earth we should be reporting anything to the Council and Commission is beyond me, but that is a matter for another day. But given that we are apparently now obliged to make such reports to these bureaucracies, then—as my right hon. and learned Friend

says—in order that the Council and Commission may assess the value of the report, we should tell them that it has been dealt with in a scanty way by the House.
Things get worse. I pick up here the reference to Standing Order No. 118, which deals with Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation. I am not sure whether what we are talking about is delegated legislation at all. The Standing Order states:
There shall be one or more standing committees, to be called Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation, for the consideration of such instruments (whether or not in draft) as may be referred to them.
I do not know whether we are considering instruments in the strict sense of the term; we are certainly not considering legislation. It is therefore odd, to say the least, that Standing Order No. 118 has been chosen to deal with those matters.

Mr. John Bercow: Do not the seven words
shall be treated as if they were
give the game away?

Mr. Forth: They do. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The whole procedure smacks of some sort of shameful sleight of hand. We would be better served if the Government were more straightforward with the House, and gave us many opportunities to consider such matters properly.
We have dealt—but not properly—with motion 6, which is in the name of the Leader of the House. It proposed:
That the House shall not sit on the following Fridays —
It goes on to name 10 or 11 Fridays in 2001 on which the Government do not want the House of Commons to sit. Why do the Government want to slip the material in motion 9 through in an hour and a half when we could deal with it properly on any of the Fridays on which they have the gall to suggest that the House should not sit?

Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the health warning should state that, notwithstanding the fact that we had ample time, the Government chose not to use it, but instead to stick the reports mentioned in the motion upstairs in Committee, where only a small number of hon. Members can speak and vote?

Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a helpful suggestion. The European bureaucracies apparently insist on receiving a meaningless report after scant or no scrutiny by the House of Commons. It would therefore make a lot of sense if we attached all sorts of warnings to it, saying, "Don't be fooled by this document; it has barely been examined by the House of Commons. It is simply the Government's version of what is going on, and, if I were you, oh bureaucrats of Europe, I should pay little or no attention to it." If nothing else emerges from the open-ended debate with no time limit on which we are embarking, such valuable information may be discerned and passed on to the bureaucrats.
I have expressed brief, preliminary thoughts. I am sure that other hon. Members want to elaborate on them. They have plenty of time to do that because the Government have generously allowed us all night to consider the motion. Subsequently, I must check the procedure for


what would happen if the debate continued until 2.30 pm tomorrow. It is an intriguing thought that, were we able to discuss the substance of the reports, the Government, in their generosity, might have allowed us sufficient time to do that. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will watch like a hawk to ensure that I make no attempt to discuss the substance; I shall not do that. I simply speculate that, under some circumstances, such a debate could continue throughout the night because a closure is no longer possible. I should like to ponder that thought and return to it on a subsequent occasion.
I urge the House to vote against the motion because I believe that it is superficial and secretive and suggests that the Government have much more to hide.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend alluded to an important point: the possibility—I put it no more strongly—that the debate might continue throughout the night. In such circumstances, does my right hon. Friend believe that it would be a definite breach of protocol if, at some stage during the night, no member of the Treasury Bench were present?

Mr. Forth: I think that that would not only be extremely irregular but would display contempt of the House. However, that would be nothing new from the Government. We have come to expect from them constant and continual contempt of the House and its traditions, and an attitude that the House of Commons does not matter any more because the Government must have their way and are entitled to do everything that they present to the House without proper scrutiny and now without even a proper vote.
We now have the ridiculous procedure of so-called deferred Divisions. I suggest that when we embark on such Divisions, probably as soon as tomorrow, the world will see how ludicrous and bizarre they are. Again, that is a story for another day. I urge the House to reject the motion.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has rightly attacked the Government in a vicious manner for the scandalous activities in which they are involved, but it is only fair to say that I am grateful to them for the chance to ask some questions that I tried hard to put during debates on the Maastricht Bill and the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which was passed by the previous Government.
I have two simple questions, which I was unable to have clarified at that time. First, are we obliged to submit such reports to the European Union and what would happen if we did not do so? I want the Government to make the position clear. Is there an absolute obligation to submit those reports? Would Treasury Ministers end up in a Euro prison if they did not do so and could Britain be fined? Those are important matters.
My second question is also important. Is there any procedure whereby the European Commission or European officials could take the view that the information provided by Britain was not accurate or proper and could they ask for

further information? Obviously, we cannot go into the detail of the reports in any way, but I want to put to the Government three brief points that worry me.

Mr. Forth: Do not make them brief, Teddy.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Well, I do not want to waste any time. I appreciate that the Minister works extremely hard in the House of Commons, and I do not want to keep him from his bed unnecessarily.
We must consider environmental issues. I have two brief points to make on "Budget 2000", one of which concerns pesticides, which are vital to the environment. The Government say that their policy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I have been lenient, but I must say to the hon. Gentleman that we are debating not the content of the reports, but simply whether they
shall be treated as if they were instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 …
We cannot discuss the detail.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I accept that absolutely; I simply point out that the question of whether information is accurate or propaganda is terribly important in relation to whether it should be considered by a specialist Committee of MPs or by the whole House. If there were any question of misunderstandings being created, the whole House should discuss such information. That point might influence how Members vote on the motion.

Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend accept that a defect of the process that we are being asked to approve is that that process will not allow the House an opportunity to add to or subtract from the reports? That means that they will be imperfect documents because they cannot properly reflect the views of the House.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend is right to point out that our democracy was effectively destroyed by membership of the European Union and the various treaties cast by previous Parliaments. I have argued for many years that joining a European Union that has approved such treaties has effectively destroyed our democracy. I am very glad indeed that he accepts that point, which is why I am sure that he must have been with me in opposing all those dreadful treaties.
It is crucial to consider what would happen if the EU said, "This is not the information that we want—it is a lot of silly propaganda." That is important in terms of whether such information should be considered by a Committee or the whole House. "Budget 2000" states:
There is increasing evidence that pesticides use is associated with significant environmental impacts … and water quality. The Government is committed to minimising the environmental impact of pesticides, consistent with adequate crop protection.
What on earth does that mean? Basically, that we are on everyone's side and have no policy at all. Please do not think that I am attacking the Government—I am asking a simple question: the Commission could say that a report was a load of rubbish and not what it wanted, but would it have the power to say to us, "We do not think that the report is adequate or appropriate in terms of the legislation"?

Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be some process whereby we can make it clear in


the report that there were 14 Members of the House present when the report that is to be transmitted to the Commission was debated? The fact that there are but 14 Members present rather undermines the suggestion that the report has the approval of the House.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I cannot be responsible for the number of Members present in the Chamber. That is a difficult argument, because if we are deciding whether the matter should go to a Committee or be considered on the Floor of the House, some people may say, "What does it matter whether we have 14 people down here or 14 people upstairs in Committee?".
What happens if the Commission, when it considers the report, takes the view that it is not accurate? I shall give a specific example.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I shall increasingly have to interrupt hon. Members unless they stick more strictly to the motion before the House. The House is being asked whether it will treat these reports as if they were instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118. That is all.

Sir Teddy Taylor: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why I want to make this one point. If we approved or rejected this motion, how would the Committee or the House view a letter from the Commission saying, "In our opinion, this point is not accurate"?
I shall just mention the issue of EU contributions, because I asked the Prime Minister about that when he made his statement yesterday and he said that they were going down. Page 190 of the report says that our EU contributions in the forthcoming year will be £6.6 billion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is now persisting along a route that he should not be taking. I ask him to bear in mind what I have already said.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I certainly will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall bring my remarks to a close.
Should the motion go to a Committee or should it be considered on the Floor of the House? Will the Government say specifically and clearly what we will be considering? Will we simply consider the Government sending a piece of paper to the European Commission saying, "That's it. If you don't like it, too bad"? Will the Government say that we must send it by a certain date? What will happen if we do not send the report, and what will happen if the Commission takes the view that it is either inaccurate or it does not deal with the policy issues as effectively as it should?
We are considering a motion about whether reports should go to a Committee or to the House as a whole. Before we decide whether they should go to a small group of experts or should be considered by all of us, it is terribly important for us to know whether this is a serious issue or just a bit of fun.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has flagged up important issues of concern to all right hon. and hon. Members.

Does he agree that it would have been courteous and true to form if the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, had set out some of these points right at the beginning? It is peculiar that a request for information should have to be made.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I appreciate fully what my hon. Friend says. Although he is a recent arrival, he is a leading and outstanding Member of the House of Commons. I can assure him that some of the old lags and I have asked Ministers these questions on the treaties year after year. I have felt the same frustration as he has. Even Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—an outstanding former Minister of Agriculture is present—

Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend please reconsider the use of the word "expert"? He suggested that this matter will be committed to a Committee of experts. Perhaps he would care to confirm, lest the Commission is listening, that those whom he calls experts are in fact designated by the Government Whips.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Neither the Government Whips nor the Opposition Whips would appoint anyone to a Committee unless they had special qualifications. Is my right hon. and learned Friend suggesting that Government and Opposition Whips send any old rubbish up to the Committee? Of course, they do not.

Mr. Hogg: I am suggesting not that the Whips would send any old rubbish up to the Committee, but that they would send tame Members of Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should point out to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and other right hon. and hon. Members that we are now straying well away from the motion.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unfair attacks have been made on the party Whips, who always do their job with great care and attention.
I have asked the Minister three questions, which I hope he will answer. I merely want to establish whether this is simply a bit of fun—an irrelevant nonsense. Is it just a case of our having to send some documents to those in Europe—and if they do not like what we send, too bad—or is it serious business? If it is serious business, some of us would like it to come to the House of Commons, so that we can look at it carefully. If, on the other hand, this is simply something that we have to do, and we are going to send something that is not too accurate without including—as we are meant to—comparisons with other member states, some of us would like to know that.
I have been asking such questions for a long time. The Minister was very helpful in saying that he would ensure that the House of Commons Library had a copy of what the Government sent to the Commission, but I want him to answer my questions. I want to know—I have tried to find it out from Ministers responsible for Europe before, in the present and the last Government—whether this is serious business, or simply something we have to do that does not matter too much.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not want to detain the House for long, but I think it important to discuss whether these matters should be considered on the Floor of the House, or treated as delegated legislation and discussed by a Committee with just a few members. While I accept that any Member of the House would be entitled to speak, a Committee debate would take place away from public view, and would not have the prominence that would be given to a debate on the Floor of the House.
I enjoyed one or two benefits as a result of sitting out the last Parliament and resting between engagements. I did not have to vote on the Maastricht treaty, and on legislation similar to what we are discussing now. That was one of the pleasures of not being in the last Parliament. I will say that, had I been here, I would unquestionably have voted against the Maastricht treaty. I abstained when the Prime Minister came back from Maastricht in December 1991, but as I was then parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher, I was obliged by convention not to vote against a matter of important Government policy. However, I did not have to vote for that legislation—the motion arises from the obligations assumed by the United Kingdom as a result of the Maastricht treaty.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was a smidgen uncharitable to the Minister, who treats the House with courtesy and tries to explain as much as possible to enable the House to reach a judgment. However, on this occasion the Minister has not explained—as I hope he will a little more—about the information that is required under article 103(3) of the treaty establishing the European Community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) asked about convergence criteria. In the margin next to section 5 are the words
Convergence criteria: assessment of deficits.
I do not have a copy of the treaty with me—despite my known scepticism, I do not keep a copy under my pillow or close to my person—but I recall that the business of deficits is extremely important. The treaty confers substantial powers on the European Commission to fine Governments who are found to have run up budget deficits in excess of—is it 3.5 per cent. of gross domestic product? I am sure that the Minister for Europe has the figure at his fingertips. A budget deficit in excess of that would render any member state liable to a fine, and the United kingdom would be one of those members. Although we have an opt-out on the single currency, as I recall—my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton may be able to correct me if I am wrong—the measures apply to us, so we are bound by the legislation. It is material legislation in so far as it confers a substantial power on the European Commission.

Mr. Bercow: Am I not right in thinking that that point was clearly established towards the fag end of the previous Parliament, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was subjected to scrutiny on the point?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend probably has a better memory on those matters than me, but I recall that it was a big issue. Therefore, the importance of the issue has a

bearing on whether the matter should be dealt with in a Committee upstairs, or on the Floor of the House. The Minister has already said that a previous example is being followed. It may be that we do not wish to be thought to be creating a precedent.
The Government seem to be saying that, instead of drawing up new information and an entirely separate document, in which we set out the information that is required under article 103(3) or under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, we have a number of documents that are readily available for public scrutiny, not to mention scrutiny by right hon. and hon. Members, including this year's Budget document.
The advertising slogans on Government documents are a bit rich at public expense. One example is "Prudent for a Purpose: Working for a Stronger and Fairer Britain", which is a bit nauseating. It is the Red Book, even though it is white—I refer to the Budget 2000 statement. Another example is the pre-Budget report, which was published last month. I have not studied that. I accept that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not wish me to study it tonight, or to acquaint the House with the results of my studies. Nevertheless, from some of the complicated pages on public finances in the pre-Budget report, it would seem that, certainly for the coming year, the Government are unlikely to run the risk of falling foul of the requirements in relation to the national budget deficit and our obligations under the Maastricht treaty to maintain the deficit within certain limits.
There could, however, come a time when the picture looked less rosy. After all, the Government have had the great benefit of inheriting a magnificently well-founded economy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) left the economy in such a splendid state that even this lot have been unable to muck it up as yet.

Mr. David Jamieson (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): That is a joke.

Mr. Howarth: It is not a joke. It is a serious point. I say in parenthesis that the Government have made great claims about the success of the economy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Howarth: I thought that I might be pulled up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is straying way away from the motion. He must come back to the motion.

Mr. Howarth: I thought that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might allow me a tiny stray because I was provoked.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend will recall the Minister saying that the Government expect the matter to be dealt with in an hour and a half—no more than that—in a Committee. Presumably, some of that time will be taken up by the Minister, if a Minister bothers to attend the Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that an hour and a half is enough time for the entirety of the House of Commons and all its Members to consider properly the matters that he is describing?

Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend asks a good and interesting question. I do not underestimate the gravity


with which the matter should be regarded, as it deals with a sphere of United Kingdom Government policy over which the European Commission has very substantial powers. It is therefore only right and proper that as many hon. Members as possible are given an opportunity to discuss the matter before a submission is made to Brussels.
Ministers should not allow other Labour Members weeks away from the House to fiddle around in their constituencies, clearing blocked drains for their constituents. That is not why we were sent to this place. We have been sent here to try to scrutinise complex documents, ensure that we look after the overall national interest and hold the Government to account for their actions on these very substantial matters.
I regret that a feature particularly of Liberal Democrat politics—because they do not have a view on most of the big issues—is to judge hon. Members partly on the basis of how well they address those parish pump issues, whereas what we should be doing is to spend time in the House addressing the big issues.

Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the defects of the process that we are discussing is that the House is being asked to approve, in one of its Committees, the Financial Statement and Budget Report and other reports with no capacity to amend those documents? Surely he will agree that there will be various opinions on the accuracy of the documents that will be remitted to the Commission. If the process is to have any validity at all, the Committee should be able to amend the documents when it considers them.

Mr. Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. As I said, the documents are off the shelf, not tailor made. I am not sure that I criticise the Government for not producing only tailor-made documents, as the use of other types of document may save public money. Such documents may be quite sufficient for the European Commission officials responsible for assessing whether the United Kingdom has complied with article 103(3) of the European Community treaty to make their judgment. In future, however, there may be a requirement to debate the matter in very much greater depth. I do not know how accurate the information is, and I certainly do not know how accurate the forecasts on which the Government are relying will be.
We are debating a serious matter that relates very much to a substantial and serious power that the European Commission has over our economic activity. As right hon. and hon. Members might like to ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the bits of the off-the-shelf documents that are to be filleted out and forwarded by the Government to Brussels, I think that the appropriate place for the documents to be considered is not in Committee, but on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has rightly dwelt on the minimal time available for consideration by the House of these important matters. Does he agree that it would be useful to know the premise—other than reference to the precedent of delegated legislation—upon which the allocation of 90 minutes is based? Are Ministers assuming that 10 hon. Members will wish to speak? Do they

suppose that 20 or 30 hon. Members will wish to speak? What does my hon. Friend think the Government's response would be if substantially more hon. Members wished to speak?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to go down that track. The time has been established.

Mr. Howarth: I am most grateful to you, as ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that guidance. As I understand it, most delegated legislation Committees run for 90 minutes.
By what process of consultation was this decided? Was it through the usual channels?

Mr. Tipping: I can help to put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery. The time of 90 minutes for such debates comes under the Standing Orders of the House. It has always been 90 minutes, right back to 1993, whether the debates have been on the Floor of the House or in Committee.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for that guidance. He is saying that, according to precedent, if the debate were taken on the Floor of the House, 90 minutes would be allocated for it. However, he did not tell us what happened before 1997.

Mr. Tipping: rose—

Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howarth: May I allow the Minister to explain first?

Mr. Tipping: Such debates have always been 90 minutes. They were 90 minutes under the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported.

Mr. Howarth: Again, I am grateful to the Minister.
This is an extremely important issue. If, in the future, the United Kingdom is in danger of being fined by the European Commission for failing to limit a budget deficit to a certain size, and if the economy turns sour and the Conservatives are returned to sort out the mess—perhaps by May—I would not like it said that precedents were created for 90 minutes to be the length of time available in which to discuss these matters.

Mr. Hogg: Is the essential question not about time but about where the matter is to be debated? Perhaps my hon. Friend should be asking not whether there was a discussion between the usual channels about the time of the debate, but whether there was a discussion on where it would take place—on the Floor of the House or in Committee.

Mr. Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. I was trying to ask the Minister whether there had been a discussion with the usual channels or whether a Committee of the House had decided that that would be the appropriate procedure. Perhaps he can tell us that in his winding-up speech.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I do not wish to detain the House long on this matter. I am surprised, however, that today, of all days, the Government have not decided to withdraw the motion, because they have been humiliated and insulted in a most extraordinary way by the President of the European Commission. I should have thought that in the light of that, the Government would wish to have this measure dealt with by the whole House so that it could indicate whether it supported the Prime Minister or agreed with the words of the President of the European Commission, who, according to press reports, today slammed the self-serving Prime Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless the hon. Gentleman can address himself precisely to the motion before the House, I shall have to ask him to take his seat.

Mr. Chope: I am seeking to address myself to the motion before the House. Should this very important issue of the pre-Budget report be referred to a Committee to be discussed by a small number of Members, and voted upon by an even smaller number, or should it be debated at greater length on the Floor of the House and be subject to a vote in which all right hon. and hon. Members can participate?
It is apparent from today's news reports that the European Commission does not think that this House takes European issues sufficiently seriously. The Commission has insulted the office of our Prime Minister. I have my own views, and so have my constituents, about the Prime Minister's personal qualities, but the office of Prime Minister has been the subject of a grave insult today by the President of the European Commission. It may be his way of saying thank you for what seems to have been an abandonment of the veto over the future appointment of the European Commission President. However, it is an appalling outrage and I am surprised that the Government are not seeking to defend the Prime Minister, and the office of Prime Minister, against that appalling insult. They could have done so either by withdrawing the motion or by saying that our relations with the European Union are sufficiently important to warrant debate by the whole House, rather than being submitted to a Committee.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has just said. A number of problems are associated with the process that we are undertaking. First, this is effectively a procedure motion. We are being asked to vote on whether a matter should be considered in Committee, but hon. Members who have not heard this debate will vote on it. I understand that the vote will proceed in a new way for a Division in the Lobby, with hon. Members recording their vote in a book tomorrow.
We need to be able to communicate at least to the reports' recipients that the procedure motion has not been considered by those who are voting on it. It is perfectly

true that hon. Members who have not heard the debates on motions often vote on them, but to vote the following day—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are here to debate the motion, not the voting procedure.

Mr. Hogg: Of course I shall adhere to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that was the first point that I wanted to make.
The second point is different. Let us assume that when the vote takes place on the motion tomorrow afternoon, a majority is in favour of remitting the matter to a Committee. Let us consider exactly what the Committee will be capable of doing, because that goes to the heart of the question whether we should remit it to a Committee. A small group of Members will be asked to consider the reports. We know perfectly well that they will not necessarily reflect the true opinion of the House; they will be chosen by the Whips. We should be able to communicate to the Commission the fact that those who consider the matter in Committee will not reflect the true opinion of either the country or the House. I know of no way in which that can be done.
It is absurd to suggest that the documents represent the unvarnished view of the House. We know perfectly well that the pre-Budget report contains many statements on which my hon. Friends and I disagree, but we have no choice—either the Committee approves the report, or it does not. The Committee has no capacity to vote on an amendment. That is surely a very extraordinary fact, given that the House knows full well that there is a variety of opinion on the economic state of the country. However, the Committee can only either approve or disapprove the reports. That is not a proper way to do business. I should have thought that the will of the House would be that the Committee should be able to amend the documents, but no such ability exists and, consequently, this is an imperfect process.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the situation is far more serious that he suggests? Even if we could change the wording of the documents, under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993—an unusual measure—the amended documents would not be sent to the Commission. A report based on such documents is sent. So even if all our hon. Friends said that they did not like what the documents say about agriculture and wanted to change that, it would not matter because the Government send a report based on the documents; they do not send the documents themselves. So democracy has been more undermined by section 5 of that Act than perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend realises.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He may well be right. Although we have differed on many matters in the past, we are broadly saying the same thing on this occasion—whatever view the Committee expresses and sends to the Commission, it will not necessarily reflect the true view of either the country or the House.

Sir Teddy Taylor: How on earth did the legislation go through the House?

Mr. Hogg: I am not disagreeing with my hon. Friend. He makes an additional point that may well be right,


but the essential fact is that the process on which we are embarking enables us either to approve or disapprove the reports, but gives us no ability to amend them. That lies at the root of my objection. In theory, there may be a case for a Committee to consider the matter, but only on the basis that it can amend the reports.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It cannot do that.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend says that the Committee cannot do that, and I agree with him. That is why the procedure is so defective.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the reasons why it is wrong to treat the documents on a par with and as if they were delegated legislation is that to do so gives the impression that they are a fait accompli? In fact, far from being delegated legislation, they are precursors to legislation.

Mr. Hogg: I do not agree with my hon. Friend, but he makes an interesting point that I would like to amplify. When people deal with legislation, they consider the consequences of what they write rather more carefully than they would if they were concerned only with a report. If they write legislation, they have to consider, for example, the penal sanctions for those people who contravene its terms. Naturally, even this Government consider carefully the terms of legislation. However, they are able to take a much more cavalier attitude to reports, because they know full well that a report—as distinct from legislation—can never be the subject of judicial review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) makes an interesting point. By referring to this matter as though it were delegated legislation, we are cloaking the process with a degree of respectability that Government propaganda does not deserve. One of the things that most of our colleagues in the European Union would accept is that this country is, generally speaking, careful about legislation.
By moving the motion, the Government are indulging in a sleight of hand that is not respectable. The House needs to devise a mechanism by which we can say, when we remit the matter to the Commission, that it is not legislation but Government propaganda; that the Committee that has considered it has not had the opportunity to amend it; that the issue has been considered only by those Members who are acceptable to the Government Whips and, by definition, that is not a test of the view of the House; and that the House has not had a chance to express a view or to vote on the matter. In short, this is worthless report and should be treated as such. My advice to Members is that they should have nothing to do with a process that is a denial of democracy.

Mr. Tipping: Several hon. Members have said that this has been a serious and interesting debate, and I agree with them. It has been extremely interesting and it has given the House the opportunity to test out our new processes, a point that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) acknowledged.

This is the first opportunity that we have had to test the procedures to be used this Session. If I read the mood of the House correctly, there will be plenty more testing of them, and we shall see how we proceed. I have certainly enjoyed the debate.
As I said in my introductory remarks, I shall focus on the process behind the motion rather than on the substance of section 5. I shall try to resist the temptation of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who challenged me by saying that I should have answered the questions before they were asked. That is an interesting concept. I know that I have a degree of telepathy and understanding of the House, but he will forgive me for not answering all his questions before he asked them. He would think me churlish if I answered the wrong question.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham realised, on reflection, that this was a matter of process rather than substance. Nevertheless, several questions have been asked, and I shall try, with your forbearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to answer them without straying outside what I see as the terms of the debate.

Mr. Bercow: There is plenty of time.

Mr. Tipping: Yes, there is, and if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall make progress. I have not even begun to answer any of the questions that were asked.
The shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), asked me, in effect, whether this was to be a debate on whether the United Kingdom was meeting the five economic tests. She questioned whether the documents that have figured in our debate are sufficiently up to date to enable Members on the Floor of the House or in a Committee to decide whether those tests are being met.
This debate does not concern an update on the five economic tests. The programme provides information on UK economic policies in line with the stability and growth pact. It does not assess whether the UK has achieved cyclical conversion within the euro area. The hon. Lady will know—my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury reassures me on this point and tells me to be firm, and it is widespread currency—that the Government have said that we will produce another assessment of the five tests early in the next Parliament.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), whom I suspect will be with us shortly, made a good case for himself being a member of the Committee. There has been much debate about who the members of the Committee should be. There are plenty of volunteers on the Opposition Whips Bench. I want to reinforce the point that hon. Members can attend Committees and speak in their debates, whether or not they are members of those Committees. In preparing for the debate, I took the precaution of looking at Opposition Members' attendance at the previous two such Committee debates, and I have to say that it was extremely sparse. I look forward, if this matter is referred to a Committee, to studying the attendance record and reading the report of its proceedings.

Mr. Hogg: Would the hon. Gentleman care to remind the House that although hon. Members who are not members of a Committee may attend and speak, they may not vote?

Mr. Tipping: That is clearly the case, and that is one of the reasons for this debate. It has also been one of its


themes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and many of his colleagues—the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, in particular—have accused the Government of trying to slip the motion through the House without allowing sufficient time for debate. As I said to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), the time allowed for the debate has not changed. Such debates are always allotted 90 minutes, whether they are held on the Floor of the House, if that is what the House chooses, or in Standing Committee. That is the nature of our Standing Orders.
The hon. Gentleman told us that we were sending the matter to a Standing Committee to put it out of sight and out of mind. He did not use those words, but he said that the debate would take place away from public view. The Committee will be open to the public, and there is no question of us trying to hide it.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I entirely accept that the Standing Committee will be open to the public. My point was that proceedings are generally more visible if they take place on the Floor of the House. I know that the Press Gallery is empty now, but there is more focus on what goes on in the House than on what happens in Committee.

Mr. Tipping: I look forward to reading the hon. Gentleman's important comments in tomorrow's national press. He has made many valid points and I would be disappointed if The Daily Telegraph and The Times did not quote him at length.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who, surprisingly, has not yet rejoined the debate, asked whether the procedure under Standing Order No. 16 was appropriate. Standing Order No. 16 provides for the Question to be put after one and a half hours on any motion pursuant to an Act. He argued that, since the motion was not a statutory instrument, Standing Order No. 16 did not apply. As section 5 of the 1993 Act is clearly part of an Act, it is eligible for such debate.

Mr. Bercow: Does not the fact that, effectively, the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 is a constitutional measure lend prima facie support to the notion that debate should take place not in Committee but on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Tipping: I do not think that that leads to prima facie support. Some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues asked whether there had been a request from those on the Opposition Front Bench for the matter to be debated on the Floor of the House. I say directly to him that there has not been such a request. I have no problem with that. There are frequent discussions between the Front-Bench teams about the ordering of business, but, on this occasion, we have not been asked for such a debate. However, other hon. Members have asked for a debate on the Floor of the House.
I was pleased to be able to help the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) earlier. I confirm that when the report is produced—following debate in Committee, I hope—I will arrange for any document that goes to the Commission to be placed, for his perusal and that of other Members, in the Library. He asked me some questions and I must be careful about my answers because I do not want to stray out of order.

He asked whether we were obliged to submit a report to the Commission. That is the nature of the treaty; that is the agreement; that is our treaty obligation. He asked whether there is any procedure for the Commission to question the Government's report. Yes, I would expect the possibility of the Commission asking questions about it. Thirdly, he asked by what date must we get the report to the Commission. It is our intention to ensure that the report is with the Commission by the end of this calendar year.

Sir Teddy Taylor: What the Minister has said is most helpful, but I have just one tiny further point. If, by chance, the Commission were to say to the Government after they submit their report that it is not happy, that it is doubtful and that it disapproves of the report, would the Government make that public and tell the House of Commons? That is relevant to whether we should consider the matter in Committee or on the Floor of the House, and it is a terribly important constitutional issue.

Mr. Tipping: It is an important issue. If such queries are raised, there will be opportunities for the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to pursue the matter. Clearly, if there is conflict between the Government and the Commission, one ought to be open about it and give hon. Members, perhaps through the Treasury Select Committee, the opportunity to pursue the matter.

Mr. Hogg: The Minister has been very helpful so far, and explained to the House how he intends that the documents will be sent to the Commission. He will have heard Opposition Members express anxieties about our inability to amend the report. If an early-day motion expressing concern about the accuracy of documents to be remitted to the report were signed by a number of hon. Members, would he be good enough to undertake that the early-day motion would also be remitted to the Commission, so that the Commission would know that this House was not 100 per cent. in support of the report?

Mr. Tipping: One thing that I learned early in my career in the House, which has not been as long as that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, is not to pay a great deal of attention to early-day motions.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Disgraceful.

Mr. Tipping: Let me tell the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that I shall do a little research tomorrow to see how often his name has appeared on them. I suspect that, to put it charitably, he is not in the leading ranks of the charge. However, an early-day motion is not an expression of the House's opinion, but the expression of an opinion of a group of Members, some of whom have a clear interest in a proposition.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked a process question about whether it is appropriate to amend the report. The report is not amendable, whether it is taken on the Floor of the House or in Committee. The matter simply does not arise.

Mr. Bercow: What are the nature, extent, duration and limits of the available sanctions and are they subject to appeal?

Mr. Tipping: I am not certain about the focus and remit of the hon. Gentleman's question. Would he like to have another go and let me try again?

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful, as a second bite is always welcome and, in consequence, the taste is that much juicier. Is the penalty financial? Can it be multiplied and be imposed more than once? For what period or periods could it apply, and is there a right of appeal? Need I make myself clearer?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister seeks to answer, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's question is relevant to the order before the House—if that helps him.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: The Minister should take the advice of the Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Tipping: I shall take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes)-I always take the advice of the Whips on the Government Front Bench.
The hon. Member for Aldershot made several points. He asked about the nature of article 103(3). The report that we shall submit to the Commission for its approval gives
an assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment, expenditure and to the social, economic and environmental goals set out in article 2.
Earlier, the hon. Gentleman said that he did not want a precedent to be set. That is a matter for the House and it is why we are having a debate tonight. The hon. Gentleman also asked for extensive debate on the process. We have had the opportunity for that debate, and I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has joined us. I understand that she will initiate the debate in Committee, and that she intends to reflect on the points

of substance that hon. Members have helpfully made tonight. I know that she does not intend to speak for too long in Committee.

Mr. James Gray: Why?

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary wants to hear the views of hon. Members to ensure that any report that we make to the Commission fulfils our needs and obligations.

Question put:—

MR SPEAKER: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Division deferred till Wednesday 13 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000]

PETITION

Broadcasting Licences

Sandra Gidley: I am pleased to present a petition organised by Alan Macleod and signed by more than 500 residents, who seek to end the situation whereby Christian and religious groups are barred from owning certain types of broadcasting licence. It is a happy coincidence that the White Paper on the future of broadcasting was launched today.
The petition states:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring forward proposals to amend the legislation to remove discrimination against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies, and to require the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to amend their Rules and Codes of Guidance to remove provisions which discriminate, in wording or in practice, against religious bodies.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Waste Disposal (Essex)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Alan Hurst: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the important matter of waste disposal in Essex. I am pleased to see in their places my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), and the hon. Members for Colchester (Mr. Russell), for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
This is the second time that I have brought the subject before the House. The other occasion was in early 1999, soon after the draft Essex and Southend-on-Sea waste plan was published.
In Essex, waste plans are rightly controversial and emotive. The plan was first published in November 1998. It identified a number of sites for large-scale waste management. Warning lights immediately came on because of the possibility that those sites might be earmarked for incineration plants. One of the sites was at Rivenhall airfield in my constituency.
Such a choice was singularly offensive as that site had been the subject of a major public inquiry in 1995, when an enormous project for waste disposal by way of landfill was proposed. The inspector took 17 days of evidence and came to the conclusion that it was not an appropriate site.
I shall quote from the inspector's report on the Rivenhall site, but much of it will apply to other sites across the county in which other hon. Members have an interest. In 1995, the inspector stated with regard to Rivenhall:
I conclude there are visual, heritage, amenity, traffic and ecological objections to the proposals, all found in discord with the development plan.
At that time, landfill was the danger; now it is incineration. In the hierarchy of waste—that has always interested me as an intellectual notion—incineration languishes near the bottom, among the serfs and villeins of former times, so to speak, together with landfill.
One might say that in many ways incineration is a greater threat to local communities than is landfill. Landfill has a life expectancy. Eventually a hole is no longer a hole because it is filled up. A very expensive capital project such as an incinerator would be expected by its owners to last as long as possible, to maximise profit. A landfill site is an eyesore and a nuisance to the neighbouring occupiers, but because of the height of the structure, an incinerator is a blot on the landscape. That would be particularly so at Rivenhall.
The site may not be at the forefront of the minds of those who do not come from Essex, but a number of hon. Members present do come from Essex. The incinerator would be placed at the top of the hill and would be seen for miles around—almost, one might say, as a monument to the folly of those who decided to locate such an installation there.
Incineration has an insatiable appetite. It needs, by its nature, to draw in an endless supply of waste to a central point.

Mr. Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not waste from Essex that the

incinerators would burn, but waste from London? Does he also agree that, if incinerators are as safe as we are told they are, there is no reason not to build them in London and so avoid the need to cart the rubbish down the Al2?

Mr. Hurst: I can find no point of disagreement with the hon. Gentleman. Furthermore, incineration works on the principle of maximising contracts. We have seen in other parts of the country minimum standards and minimum amounts imposed on contracting local authorities. If they fail to meet those targets for waste—as I believed happened in Cleveland—they suffer financial penalties.
The existence of an incinerator multiplies traffic movements, and therein lies one of the strongest arguments against incineration as a major way forward in waste disposal. The inspector's report on the site of Rivenhall did not give the go-ahead, but stipulated as a caveat that there should be an assessment of the highway and traffic consequences of siting such an installation at Rivenhall.
It is not possible for me to state how many additional traffic movements would be created by such an installation at Rivenhall, but it has been estimated that as many as 50 heavy lorry movements per day would bring waste to the site. Those lorries would come along the unreconstructed section of the Al20—not the part that is proposed to become a dual carriageway, which runs west of Braintree, but the part that runs east of Braintree towards Colchester, which is a two-way highway already overburdened with traffic. The lorries would run through the village of Bradwell, which is already under pressure from continual flows of traffic, way in excess of the capacity originally envisaged for that stretch of road.
Because Rivenhall is described as an airport, one might imagine that it is an industrial site—indeed, it is ludicrously called a brownfield site. In fact, it is one of many airfields constructed throughout East Anglia during the second world war—many in my constituency—from which our pilots and our allies in the United States air force flew during the liberation of Europe. There were airfields at Earls Colne, Wethersfield, Andrews field at Saling and Rivenhall—all in my constituency. Only this morning, I was speaking to a close friend and constituent of mine, John Alston of Coggeshall, who remembers being on the airfield when thousands of service personnel were being entertained by Glen Miller and Bob Hope. That is the origin of the categorisation of Rivenhall as an industrial site, but it is fair to say that the residents of Rivenhall are not "In the Mood" to have a major incinerator on the site. To the naked eye, Rivenhall today is pastoral—it is farmland and woods crossed by pathways and quiet country lanes. Were a major waste disposal installation to be put there, those lanes would thunder with the sound of lorries carrying waste to the site.
As the hon. Member for Colchester says, a further problem is the importation of waste from London and Kent in particular. Each year, there are many thousands of vehicle movements from London and Kent bringing waste into the county of Essex. In one form or another, the importation of waste into Essex has been going on since Roman times. London has always tried to dump its


surplus waste in our county, but if there is one thing that will act like a lamp to a moth, it will be large-scale waste disposal sites dotted across Essex.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene in his Adjournment debate. He has the honour to represent a lovely part of Essex, at least for the time being. I share his concern about journey numbers, but is he objecting to them or to incinerators per se? Does he support the Government's position, which is that incinerators are inevitable as a last resort?

Mr. Hurst: I take the hon. Lady's point. My objection is that, by its nature, a large-scale incinerator will draw imported waste from other areas. Without that importation of waste, the incinerator is not a profitable operation. Without going into any other ground that might lead one to oppose incineration or not, incineration on a large scale is harmful to Essex because of the traffic movements that it generates within the county.
The Government's policy is manifold. There are aspects of it that are akin to the locality principle. That principle would say that Braintree district, Maldon district or Colchester should each deal with its own waste. I am sure that each one is capable of dealing with its own waste, and on that basis there would be no need for major waste disposal sites to be dotted across the county.

Mr. John Whittingdale: I support much of what the hon. Gentleman says. In a spirit of cross-party unity, if I say that I agree with many of the arguments that he has advanced in respect of Rivenhall, I hope that he will agree with me that Sandon in my constituency would be equally unsuitable as a possible site for an incinerator. We would prefer to see no incinerators in Essex.

Mr. Hurst: I can confirm that Members in the Braintree area take an internationalist view of these matters and are not sectional. Everything that I have said, save for the geographic aspects, applies equally to Sandon or any major site within the county, including Rivenhall.
The further argument against incineration on a major scale is that it detracts from the incentive to follow through recycling. Witham in my constituency and the district of West Mersea, which is close to Colchester, are both undergoing major recycling experiments. I am told that recycling of household waste has reached 50 per cent. in the Braintree district, and that the target is 60 per cent. in two years. If other districts within the county and elsewhere, especially in London and Kent, took that step, there would be no need for incinerators. If a county or a district such as Braintree is making progress with recycling, it seems hard that it should be penalised by having major waste disposal sites in the county or the district.
The plan has recently been adapted and modified by the county council. It gives us great hope that there will be a presumption against incineration until the targets for household waste recycling have been tested.
I bring these matters before the House because Braintree district and the county seek allies in arguing that we are acting in the interests of the public in promoting

recycling. If major incineration sites were to be permitted within the county, that would undermine the thrust and purpose of the Government's policy and the policy of most hon. Members in the Chamber.

Mrs. Christine Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in his Adjournment debate. There could be further clarification, and I should like to hear that the waste strategy for Essex contains a presumption against incineration without a caveat. That is the sure way of promoting more recycling with composting, waste minimisation and re-use. I know of nothing in the Government's strategy to the effect that incineration is an inevitable and absolute requirement on a waste disposal authority. That is a matter for the local waste disposal authority, and the buck should not be passed back. However, I welcome the waste strategy document that replaces the draft one because it is a move in that direction.
The French are taking a great interest in major incinerator initiatives in Britain. They are talking avidly to waste disposal authorities, which is unwelcome to me and to those of my colleagues who are present tonight. We do not want waste disposal authorities to take that option too easily. The French are particularly concerned about a move against incineration in France. That is why some of the French-based companies are so interested in the United Kingdom. I hope that Essex county council will take note of that and go for extra composting and other facilities, develop the pilot schemes that it has introduced and that are proving so successful and remove the little caveat and go for a straightforward presumption against incineration throughout Essex. Suck it and see is what I say.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) raised an important issue, as did his colleagues, and he did so eloquently. This is the third time since the Government took office that the subject of waste disposal in Essex has been debated in the House, and it is clearly a matter of great concern to his constituents and all the people of Essex. It is an issue that we are having to grapple with throughout the country, and some difficult decisions have to be taken.
I am aware that my hon. Friend is among many people in Essex who have reservations about the strategy set out in the emerging Essex and Southend waste local plan, as was reflected in the large number of objections made to the plan. I am also aware of the widely held view that the proposed strategy is weighted too heavily in favour of landfill sites and incineration. I know that there is a belief that intensive recycling would be sufficient to reach the targets for waste disposal that need to be achieved, and that a trial of intensive recycling is currently in place for a number of pilot areas, to which my hon. Friend referred. I agree about the need to ensure that the environmental benefits of recycling and composting are not overlooked and are given due weight by the waste planning authorities in the local plan.
As my hon. Friend said, traffic moving to and from landfill sites and incinerators can often cause congestion on unsuitable local roads and have an adverse impact on


residential amenity. That is a further reason why the Government are anxious to encourage alternative methods of waste disposal that are less likely to create such problems. I entirely understand that people would rather not live near landfill sites, or an incinerator, but no matter what progress might be made in Essex and Southend on recycling and the local processing of waste, some landfill sites will still be required, certainly in the immediate future. It is therefore important that the waste plan provides guidance on where such facilities should be located, and it is right that the selection of such sites must, in the first instance, be a matter for consideration and debate at the local level.
Since the subject was last debated on 26 February 1999, the Essex and Southend waste local plan has been the subject of a lengthy public inquiry at which all objections were considered by an independent inspector. The inspector has since submitted his report to the waste planning authorities, which early next year will publish their response to the inspector's findings and their proposed modifications to the plan. The modifications will, of course, be open to objection.
My hon. Friend will know that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has the power to intervene in the plan process at any stage up to the time that the plan is adopted. His quasi-judicial role means that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits of the Essex and Southend waste local plan, including the need for and choice of landfill sites. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we will examine the proposed modifications published by the waste planning authorities in the light of the inspector's recommendations, the Government's waste strategy and national policies on waste disposal.
On Thursday, I shall meet a delegation from the Consortium of Essex Waste Collection Authorities, so I will have an opportunity to hear its views at first hand. Meanwhile, I shall comment on the Government's general approach to waste, including incineration.
As hon. Members know, the new strategy was published in May. It identified the need for a fundamental change in the way in which we think about and manage our waste. That will mean curbing the growth in waste and learning to recognise waste as a resource. The Government are committed to dramatic increases in recycling and composting rates, which lie at the heart of developing a more sustainable system of waste management in this country. We will, though, also need to recover more energy from waste by incineration when that represents the best practical environmental option. However, I accept that care must be taken to ensure that any plans for incineration do not crowd out recycling.

Mr. Bob Russell: Will the Under-Secretary put on record the fact that incinerators, be they at Rivenhall or Stanway in my constituency, do not dispose simply of waste from Essex, but are required to dispose of waste from London and Kent? If incinerators are so safe, why not construct them at the point where the waste is generated? That is preferable to lorries trundling around the Essex countryside.

Mr. Mullin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are plans for incinerators in London; indeed, some already exist there. If he is making the same point as my hon.

Friend the Member for Braintree—that a lot of the waste disposed of in Essex comes from London—that is incontrovertible. I agree that that is not in line with the proximity principle, to which I shall refer shortly, if I have time. However, I am not willing to pretend—and neither should the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell)—that people in Essex do not create waste, and that they can dispose of it all by the method that is ideologically most suitable. A moment might come when incineration has to be contemplated even for disposing of waste in Essex. It cannot be ruled out, but I emphasise that it is primarily a matter for local decision.
For the first time, the Government will set statutory targets for household waste recycling and composting. Those will require councils on average to double recycling by 2003–04 and to triple it by 2005–06. We have set even higher targets for 2010 and 2015; we will keep them under review and raise them if that should prove practical. We have a lot of ground to make up because we have been somewhat complacent about waste in the past, and we must try to catch up with neighbouring countries, which have taken a more robust approach.
A key driver of those goals is the European landfill directive, which will require substantial changes to the way in which we manage our waste. In the United Kingdom, we currently landfill more than 80 per cent. of our biodegradable municipal waste. The directive will require substantial reductions in municipal waste sent to landfill. If waste production continues to grow at its current rate, it will mean diverting 33 million tonnes of waste from landfill each year by 2020.
The plain fact is that recycling and composting alone will not deliver the rates of diversion necessary to meet the targets in the landfill directive. Some incineration will have to occur; as I said earlier, the precise location and quantity are matters for local authorities. Any increase in incineration should be part of an integrated, sustainable system of waste management. Authorities and the incineration industry need to plan to ensure that expansion in energy from waste does not crowd out recycling.
I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree that we must not build incinerators that create insatiable appetites, attract waste from many miles away and generate their own reasons for existing. Contracts should allow flexibility and ensure that incineration does not compete with recycling. Incinerator operators should maximise the environmental benefits of their facilities by including combined heat and power where possible. Other countries elsewhere in Europe, most of which have far better records on dealing with waste than we do, also make widespread use of energy from waste by way of incineration.
The national planning guidance on the management of waste is in planning policy guidance note 10, which was published in September 1999. It is intended to assist planning authorities in the preparation of their local plans and the determination of planning applications for waste management facilities. It also provides specific advice on the criteria for the siting of those facilities. In particular, it states the Government's wish that waste management decisions should be based on four principles: the best practicable environmental option for each waste stream, regional self-sufficiency, the proximity principle and a waste hierarchy. The latter comprises, in descending order of merit, reduction; reuse; recovery, including recycling; composting and energy recovery; and disposal.
In the few remaining minutes, I should touch on the question of London's waste, which is a big problem for Essex. I am conscious of the fact that, because of Essex's proximity to London, about half its landfill waste comes from the capital. The planning guidance for London is based on the waste hierarchy and principles of sustainable development, but it will be replaced by a management strategy shortly to be produced by the Mayor. That will have to take account of the UK's international obligations, including the EC landfill directive, and the national waste strategy, which sets a target of 25 per cent. of London's waste being recycled by 2005.
A draft of the mayor's municipal waste management strategy is due to appear in the new year. There will then be a consultation period before the final strategy appears towards the end of next year. I emphasise that we expect there to be a progressive reduction in the amount of untreated waste exported by London for disposal as alternative waste management facilities are established in London. However, it is unlikely that London will achieve self-sufficiency in the short term and disposal to landfill

sites outside the capital will therefore continue to play an important role. It is therefore important that neighbouring waste authorities such as Essex and Southend should recognise that there is a continuing need for some landfill sites outside London for treated waste.
I hope that I have said enough to show that the Government take the issue seriously. We are making substantial extra resources available over the next three years to help local authorities to meet challenging targets. I repeat that decisions about whether waste-to-energy facilities should be built, where they should be sited and what size they should be are matters, in the first instance, for local authorities, subject to the criteria that I have outlined.
I look forward to continuing the discussion with the delegation from Essex, which is coming to see me on Thursday. No doubt the issue will not go away, so I fully expect to meet hon. Members representing Essex constituencies here, at some unconscionable hour of the night, to discuss it again.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Twelve midnight.